It wasn't the original post, he edited it. There wasn't any indication of it being a metaphor or anything similar. Bitcoin can outlive us, doesn't mean it will or it should.

I don't think fiat would be devalued to that extent, even in wars. Else, how would people still transact?

Bitcoin, conversely is more susceptible to EMP and disruption in the internet than you think. Alternative forms of communication is possible but isn't widely adopted.

Thanks. Good that they have that stated in the disclaimer. I never really used them other than for some troubleshooting with the users here, I missed that line.

In Bitcoin.conf file, you should be able to add as many nodes as you want but there will be a restriction on the number of nodes your client will connect to. You can try opening port 8333 to allow other nodes to connect to you, the node count should increase gradually as your IP address gets relayed and propagated through addr messages within nodes.

Generally, the transactions that are non-standard, ie. valid transactions but are do not pass the standardness check[1] enforced by the nodes, will not be accepted by your node. They could still be accepted into a block however. Those are the kinds of transactions that you'll probably never see in the mempool, but only in blocks mined by miners.

By attempting to connect to as many node as possible, you could allow your bitcoind to potentially have more sources for the transactions to be relayed to you, deceasing the chances of certain transactions having low propagation (Txes with low relay fee, etc) but are otherwise standard and valid.

[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/consensus/validation.h#L21

Not all. See my response.
No. Transactions are removed from mempool when they're in the block.

If the transaction is included in the block, then the transaction is already confirmed.

If you want to look at unconfirmed transaction (ie. transactions that has not yet been included in the block), you have to refer to your mempool. There is no perfect source of information for the unconfirmed transactions as mempool is just a representation of the transactions that has been relayed to you. It does not represent all the transactions that could be included in the next block, be it due to poor propagation or miner not broadcasting them to others.

Research on Ledger and Trezor. Both of them offers a huge catalog of altcoins for you to store from. Caveat is that for the device that stores more kinds of cryptos, it is only supported on the higher end devices. Be prepared to shell out a little bit more money for that.

My personal preference is Ledger over Trezor for your specific use case. You have to see what kinds of cryptos they offer though.

Most of the ads actually use a redirection on their ads. The link itself isn't the phishing but the final website is the phishing website.

It seems to load some php script before the redirection, not sure why is that for but I wild guess would be to filter out people who check for their websites and try to keep it up as long as possible. The resultant website has a domain with a similar looking e and wouldn't be super obvious to whoever using it.

I'm not sure why Google Safe Browsing wouldn't flag these out though, perhaps Electrum isn't at the top of their priority.

I agree. I just made a post describing how 2FA has it's shortcoming in another thread. Most newbies think that 2FA would protect them from most attacks as well. The range of possible cases that they would be protected from isn't stated or discussed anywhere. I feel that this is at the very least misleading, but perhaps not to the fault of Electrum.


There seems to be a lot more confusion about why Electrum is suddenly putting a 0.001BTC output. Why doesn't Electrum put the payment preference to the start of the screen for the user to configure? At least that'll make it clearer that they're paying X to X and clear any confusion. I believe that's an UI issue but it would help a bit if they were to change it slightly.

It doesn't, but I want to hear about why TrustedCoin 2FA could be useful for some. Which is why I created this thread for a discussion from both sides of the camp.

I acknowledge that it does help the user to a certain extent, is the fees being charged (0.000025BTC/tx) and considering that some would change to a HW wallet before they finish using the credit reasonable for the level of security provided?

Nope.
Depends on how many times you roll the dice. Having a larger number of possible outcomes for each dice will increase the entropy, think log2 (x), let x be the number of sides. The problem here lies with the bias when choosing specific dices for the sequence of entropy though.

To be fair, I think they did think it through and they structured it such that you don't need the signature of TrustedCoin for the transaction to be valid because you hold 2 keys and the multisig is 2 of 3.

Agreed. I suppose using HW wallets would mitigate this risk completely in the first place. And with hot wallets, a password would be sufficient. Does other kinds of seed phrase allow a third party to see the seeds?

My apologies. I mis-read your question and I understood after I read it again. Deleted the misleading message.

I assume by old, you mean that the wallet was generated prior to 0.13.0? If that is so, the upgraded wallet will mean that the old keypool has been flushed during the upgrade and the new keypool was created following the upgrade. The new address has likely been generated from the HD seed for which the addresses are not within your old walllet due to the upgradewallet behavior.

Your best bet is to recover the new wallet. I don't think there's any harm in trying your old wallet, given that there's still a slight chance that somehow the address is in your old wallet. Addresses are shown sequentially when you generate a new receiving address from the receiving tab and there is a pool of 100 addresses which are not displayed to you in the wallet.dat. So, if you import the wallet into a new client and click generate, the receiving address could be the one that you've sent the funds to.

This is if the keypool has not been flushed by the upgrade wallet.

Most people refer to 2FA as a OTP from a device. It simply means 2 Factor Authentication which doesn't necessarily mean OTPs but it's commonly referred to as such. 2FA can be an authentication done with email and the password, password and SMS, password and biometric etc.

I presume you'll understand that any compromise from the back end, be it an inside job or a vulnerability would affect you, 2FA or not. Certain scenarios allows the 2FA to be bypassed completely and that is a point to consider. As with the security of 2FA, SMS authentication are NOT secure and if you're a high profile person, it is not difficult to social engineer staff at your telecom to do a sim jack and compromise your accounts. Has happened before and it will definitely continue to happen, humans are the weakest link.

Conversely, if you use a company who trains their support staff well to be less susceptible to social engineering (ie. implementing additional physical verification or hard coding certain data), you could probably use a 2FA hardware key and be safe with it. That is a very big if, and personally, I don't trust them.

This is not a topic about how to do 2FA, how it works etc etc. I'm talking about the efficacy of 2FA with TrustedCoin in preventing users' funds from getting compromised by a malicious party.

As a starter, 2FA by TrustedCoin incurs extra fees through both the larger TX size as well as their fees to be charged for the transactions signed by them. The benefits of TrustedCoin, however isn't exactly clear. On one hand, it would prevent attacks if the attacker is in control of the system for short periods of time and if the attacker doesn't install malware on it's computer. If the computer gets compromised by malware, the OTP that could be captured can be used to get TrustedCoin to sign an alternate transaction. It seems feasible in theory but I've yet to see anyone done it.

In addition, if the malware existed since the creation of the wallet, the 2FA would be totally useless. Does the 2FA in Electrum provide a false sense of security to the user or is there an actual use case that would justify the fees that TrustedCoin receives for their service?

---

Just some thoughts since Electrum's docs specifically mentions
. And a lot of newbies has been using 2FA and having quite some trouble with it as well.

If I had to guess, my best hunch would be that your block files is corrupted. You have to scour your debug.log file abit more and see if anything indicates that the blocks are corrupted.

I highly doubt that it's your internet being restricted. But to eliminate the possibility, you'll have to see when was the last line that Bitcoin Core synchronized. Did you have any power outage or any time when Core had an unclean shutdown (abruptly).

Okay. There's a bunch of topics on this and we really don't have to help them with the SEO and post this for every site that you see. There are numerous sites, that are phishing Electrum users and it's not hard to see them from the Google Ads. If people were to start posting this every time they search Electrum on Google, we'll probably have ten new threads a day.

Go and report the site to Google by clicking report this ad and file a report. It should be removed soon enough.

If you don't believe me, go search Electrum on Google yourself. The top two results are phishing sites different from the one OP posted.

This is not a cult. You don't have to defend the network with your lives.

It's highly unlikely that Bitcoin will 'die' unless there is a catastrophic event that brings down the entire internet and all of the hard drive's contents. The number of nodes that are present on the network ensures that there is sufficient redundancy. It also won't really matter that much if Bitcoin gets abandoned because there'll probably be a better version of the crypto available.

I presume you used the "Spend from" function. If you've done it correctly, the bottom should have a green line with "Coin Control active: X output available". Go to Send tab and put whichever address you have and fill up the fields.

Is the bubble at the bottom right green? Are you sure you're using BTC/mBTC correctly?

No. Is the transaction confirmed? If it's still unconfirmed, there's a chance that it could be dropped by the mempool and it'll be appear as if the transaction has never happened. If the transaction is confirmed, the funds are in the recipient address.
Common misconception. The expiry for the address generated in the receive tab is merely an invoice and you can set it to expire at any time for easier accounting. However, addresses themselves never expire and will always be in the wallet that has the correct seed.

It's only available to institutional investors. Having a crypto exchange created by a renowned bank is no doubt significant progress in the adoption of cryptocurrencies but more of the general public are out of reach of the exchange. I wouldn't call it a publicity stunt but it's greatly exaggerated, given most of us probably won't ever see it, let alone use it.

Conversely, MtGox ran away with everyone's money after going insolvent. The fallacy that so called reputable companies are responsible for any mistakes that they make is flawed. Binance was kind enough to cover for their mistake and it shouldn't even have happened in the first place. If the hack is due to the user's negligence, there would be no reason for the exchange to shoulder the responsibility as well (sim jacking is fairly common nowadays), 2FA isn't an iron fort as well.

In addition, if Coinbase can seize and hold your funds, I would think that holding your own coins would give you the assurance at the very least.