Good question. No and no. Hackers wouldn't be able to sign the file after modifying it's code which would result in the signature not matching for the file.

I wouldn't trust using the digital signature of the software as a guarantee that the software hasn't been modified in a malicious manner. CAs has been compromised before and some of them were able to issue fake certification to state actors or hackers. PGP is the only way to ensure that you're downloading the version that is signed by ThomasV.

Also, some of the binaries during the Electrum phishing were actually digitally signed by the hackers using some presumably compromised CA.

Bitcoin does not prevent repeated transactions that are sent by accident. Bitcoin's Blockchain only prevents funds from being spent twice, in two separate transactions and both being included in the blockchain. It does nothing if the exchange accidentally sends you the funds twice, that'll be a technical error on the exchange's side.

For both of the transactions, do they both have confirmations and are they visible on the blockexplorers when you search your address? Which exchange are you using?

Not true. HeartBleed was only detected 2 years after it was accidentally introduced into the code. Having an open source software provides a check-and-balance for people to be able to have reproducible builds and detect any potential backdoors inserted by the developers. I think it's important to be clear that this benefit lies primarily with those who are able to read and understand the source code. As for everyone else, they have to trust that those who read the source codes are competent and able to stop any backdoors being inserted. Open source =/ Trustless.

Bitcoin Core has to be open source is due to it's decentralised nature. There cannot be any central authority to make changes and everyone should be free to fork and implement their own code change. It's the reference implementation after all and it doesn't make sense for it to be close source anyways. Your points are valid, just wanted to add a bit of my thoughts.

It's normal.

Hyperlinks are always disabled when you're trying to post something. It has always been the case for hyperlinks at the top and images in the post are displayed like this :

Oh, I get what you mean now.

You can do that. Most wallets already provide floating fees and they're somewhat the same. I would consider using actual mempool stats if you know how to read one and can estimate how much fees you need given the statistics. Most wallets has a decent algorithm to calculate the optimum fees for confirmations within X blocks which can be easier for OP, if he doesn't know how mempool would work.

IMO, there could be some ambiguity when reading the mempool stats but most fee estimation algorithm does some calibration based on the time after the last block and stuff. It definitely won't be 100% accurate, nothing really is.

---

0.0005BTC for a transaction is actually quite absurd. I had to pay 0.0005BTC for my withdrawal while my other transaction took 10 times less than that. You probably have to consider the fees with depositing from your bank (if your currency isn't supported on Binance), the trading fees and stuff like that. Localbitcoins and Bisq are good P2P exchanges to consider as well. It could fit better into your use case.

Don't have to. I can be wrong too, but it'll be good if it's refuted with some actual evidence instead of just asking if I'm sure.

The format for Ethereum address is completely different from BTC addresses. Even if the software was incredibly bugged, the actual transaction that gets signed would never get confirmed since it's not valid in the first place. These scenarios are more common for Bitcoin forks and/or altcoins that uses similar format but even that is recoverable.

Besides, plenty of people have said it won't be lost. So... yeah, perhaps people should read the entire thread before posting.

It's open source[1]. No easy way to verify the build yourself since they don't provide hashes and they're not signed by PGP. You can build the Mycelium from source and verify it with the apk, if you want. It's fairly easy to do and the steps are on the github pages under deterministic build.

Tbf, signatures doesn't strictly provide sufficient security, when your source for such information would be located on the phishing website as well. PGP works best if you have an established WOT.

[1] https://github.com/mycelium-com/wallet-android

No. 8332 (18332 for testnet) is for your RPC, as you've specified. Please don't open that port, people tend to scan those ports to find Bitcoin RPC to bruteforce.

Peers typically connect through 8333 but that is not necessary to be opened unless you need people to connect to you. Is there anything blocking any outgoing connection to other peers either by your local firewall rule or your service provider rules? How does the node function after attempting to get IPs from the DNS seeds?

Until one day, your wife throws the remote control away or your kids dunk it in their orange juice .

I think it'll be cool to have hardware wallets which can blend into the surroundings. I doubt that'll ever happen, the demand for that is fairly low given how everyone seeks in a HW wallet is it's user interface and the appearance is secondary. You could possibly prevent this from happening by buying a case for it and hide your "presumably" small hardware wallet inside some sleeves.

HW wallets can get bulky depending on what you're looking at.

Definitely not custodial wallets. Most custodial wallets can benefit from imposing higher than appropriate fees when their users withdraw and the transaction is a batched transaction, which means that you're really paying more than what's needed/spent on the fees.

As for the wallets to use, you can choose from Electrum, Wasabi wallet, Bitcoin Core, they're my recommendation. For the lowest fees, try to use Segwit. The wallet will calculate the size and thus the fees automatically for you. Since the size is a direct factor of the amount of fees that you pay, try to reduce the number of inputs used per transaction by consolidating smaller UTXOs periodically when the fees are low. For example, if you receive 3 payments a day, you can consolidate those many UTXOs and you'll need to use lesser inputs when you need to spend your funds in the future. The benefits is most evident when you're trying to send funds when the fees are high.

If you want a rough estimate of the size, try using this: https://jlopp.github.io/bitcoin-transaction-size-calculator/. You have to understand what the values means. You don't have to know the size, just follow my recommendations and you'll be fine.

---

I can't comment on how exchanges charge for the fees, that's dependent on where you live and which exchange you have access to.

Yeah. Hypothetical scenario is that they go rogue and stop issuing their signed nlocktime. I prefer 2 of 3 over this though it requires more security on my part.

You literally cannot send ETH to a Bitcoin address. It is not possible and even if its an UI error, the funds cannot be sent on the network.

No exactly. They offer 2-of-2 primarily, at least for their implementation with Blockstream. There is 2-of-3 but most would use 2-of-2 because it is what they are offered by default.

https://help.blockstream.com/hc/en-us/articles/900001391763-How-does-Blockstream-Green-s-multisig-security-work-

I think that's quite a stretch to say that miners will support deliberate censorship and undermine the foundation that Bitcoin is built on. The last time Ghash exceeded 51% threshold, the price dipped briefly and there was a huge discussion about the whole fiasco. If that's was the consequence of them having 51% of the network without doing anything malicious, I would think that miners that care about their own returns would take more proactive steps to prevent this from becoming a threat.

If the pool is able to offer more than what other pools (even those with very low/no fees), then I would think there is some motives behind it as well.

Wasn't that the case after most wallets implemented the RFC? I'm pretty sure that was the case in earlier versions of Bitcoin Core, before they implemented the deterministic nonce?

Yes. It's not uncommon for antiviruses to have a bunch of false positives. If you've ever downloaded CGminer, you'll realise that it'll be automatically quarantined because it matches some signatures of botnets.

It looks like a legitimate server to me. I would recommend for everyone to validate the installation[1] before using it. You will reduce any chances of the program being malicious and installed from a phishing website, there are plenty of them.

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5240594.0

Not secure. There's no guarantees that whatever you've downloaded is secure because there is no source of information to cross check and your trust will be fully on Google Play and yourself to be downloading the legitimate version. The reason why Electrum has PGP validation is such that the trust lies on the precompiled binaries by ThomasV and if you trust him, validating the program with his PGP is sufficient.

That being said, most Android Apps are not designed for offline storage specifically but mainly for the convenience of accessing your funds from another wallet.

That used to be the case and you'll get a different signature for every try.

However, due to the concerns arising from the system having a flawed RNG and generating insecure signatures, we've started implementing RFC6979[1] in our wallets. Having a deterministic k and it's nonce that is obtained from a function of both the private key and the message and thus having a unique nonce that is never reused. This also entails that for a specific message signed with a specific private key and a message, the signature is always the same.

In this case, the nonce doesn't have to be completely random, just to the extent that each of the signature has to be unique. There were plenty of incidents involving reusing nonce, especially with Blockchain.com(Blockchain.info in the past).

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6979

Yes. But you have to have control of the inputs that were used in the transaction to double spend. Quote appears to say that you can just randomly siphon funds from other addresses.
At the end of the day, miners probably won't support the attacker. After all, the miners would be losing money after any 51% attack. The rational thing miners would do is to try to mitigate the 51% attack or to switch off their equipment. Helping the attacker would just be burning through your cash. 

Honestly, if someone were to 51% attack Bitcoin, I doubt they will be honest enough to let me get the block rewards.

Those that are displayed appears to be from both DT1 and DT2. It's the default view as if you've never added anyone else so I assume it also means that it uses the default depth which is 2.

If you want to know the people which will be included in the trust feedback, use: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dt.