If both OS are on same PC, then you can choose to select bitcoin folder from NTFS HDD Drive.

But you need to mount this NTFS drive on boot and AFAIK Linux don't work well on NTFS drive.


If your internet connection & peer speed are very fast, you'll see bottleneck if you use HDD. HDD usage always stay 100% and chart of connection speed always stop/heavily decreased for some times.

Also, since OP plan to migrate to Linux, partial of copied data usually verified (even though it only took few minutes on HDD).

You have better chance to get private key by finding weakness on PRNG/CSPRNG when generate private key/seed or become first people who able to use quantum computer (which is powerful to get private key from public key).

I also remember someone had same thought like you and prepare lots of tools

Without knowing part of your password and information of how you create the password (length, whether you use special character, etc.) it's pretty difficult

You can use services such as https://walletrecoveryservices.com/, but it's strongly recommended to try to unlock the wallet by yourself. There are plenty of tools which can be used to brute-force wallet such as JohnTheRipper


Newbie account cannot post images, but you can share link to the picture.

I don't really understand your question, but here's my opinion

Running full nodes is quite easy as you just need to download, run installer/extract .zip files and run bitcoin-qt. Linux user or those who don't need GUI version need to run extra few steps, not difficult, but not convenient.
The biggest limitation would be cost of running full nodes (electricity / internet connection) and there's no direct "reward", even though you could earn better security and privacy with right steps.


Assuming you're talking about TPS on-chain when you mention better performance, then no. Increase block size/weight limit or reduce transaction size is the answer.

Master nodes make people interested to run full nodes, but IMO those who run full nodes don't really care about the coins itself. They don't bother take part on consensus/the direction of the coin itself, only follow whatever which could increase coin price.
Additionally, without limitation such as minimum coins "frozen"/"deposited", master nodes could be abused easily by running multiple full master nodes


You're right, but it's not enough since abuser could use Blockchain Explorer API to get the data.

This should be obvious, but Electrum which included on Tails isn't up-to-date. Bug regarding wallet/seed creation don't happen and new address/wallet standard rarely changed, but people should know about this fact.


This is completely unnecessary if you use linux that only runs at RAM or you use CD-R/DVD-R as boot media. You also could remove all storage drive, leaving only your USB, CD-R or DVD-R if you're that paranoid.

Also, it's not really good action from environmental side.

Menurut saya Blockchain overrated karena sebagian orang menganggap Blockchain dapat menyelesaikan semua permasalahan.

Beberapa kelebihan Blockchain adalah data tidak bisa diubah, tidak bisa melakukan manipulasi data, semua orang bisa melihat (atau/dan menambahkan data) dan tidak harus percaya kepada pihak tertentu. Tetapi saya yakin dunia industri dan ekonomi tidak membutuhkan hal tersebut.
Jika hanya butuh cara untuk distrubusi data, sudah ada Distributed Database & Shard Database
Jika hanya ingin mencegah manipulasi data, bisa dilakukan dengan cara meningkatkan keamanan Database seperti hanya mengijinkan user tertentu untuk melakukan manipulasi data
Selain itu, kecepatan distrubusi dan penyimpanan data di blockchain lebih lambat dibandignkan database.

Blockchain hanya cocok ketika suatu sektor industri atau ekonomi perlu untuk mendistrubisikan data dimana semua orang bisa melihat data tersebut (dengan Open Permissioned/Permissionless blockchain) dan menurut saya, blockchain hanyalah bagian kecil dari Revolusi Industri 4.0
Mungkin teknologi yang menggunkan blockchain bisa berperan besar dalam Revolusi Industri 4.0 seperti Cryptocurrency

So basically you attempt to make "stable" coin by :
1. 2 coins (on a blockchain) with exactly same feature
2. Control inflation/block rewards based on hash-rate

As for 1st idea, it's only stable when coin A traded with coin B and vice versa. If all holder, investor and users no longer interested with both coins, both coin price will crash.

As for 2nd idea, it's really interesting idea. However it would fail if :
1. Miner looking for short-term profit and miner could use his ASIC/GPU to mine other coins.
2. Investor or miner who hold lots of coin decide to dump this coin

Additionally, it would make the network less secure since hashrate constantly changed and there might be times where hashrate is very low which allow 51% attack at low cost & i doubt people interested with cryptocurrency without fixed inflation rate/growth supply cap.

I don't really need this kind of tool, but it's good to see UnitTests usage on non-huge project, even though it only test few tasks.


Looking on the source code¹, i think OP use https://ethplorer.io/

You also can use search engine and add nodes IP manually with -addnode=<ip>


It's the method to establish connection between 2 nodes. Both local and remote nodes send and receive version and verack information.
Click the url if you want to know the details. But few things that you should look are version, services, socket (IP:port), user_agent, nonce & start_height

Yes, that's what i meant. Big banks or credit-card provider such as Visa might able to pull it off.

In fact, MasterCard tried to patent this¹

If at least one of your full nodes isn't on pruned mode, then you could set all pruned full-node to always connect to your non-pruned full nodes. Assuming your full nodes isn't under attack, then MITM attack on pruned full-node would be far harder

You can use this guide https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/41427 if you're interested

Buying second hand ASIC have some risks, but i'm sure you know that.

But, rather than looking for second hand miners based on noise, you should look for efficient ASIC and ways to reduce it's noise.
There are few threads about reduce noise such as I need quiet in my house! Sound control techniques for S9 miners? and Hobby Techno's Soundproof Box for Antminer

Clearly the hacker have no intention to return any of your money, in fact he tried to scam you again.
He throw some jargon / terminology to make you confused and think he's right, while in fact it's pure non-sense.

With numerous suggestion on last 2 threads, the only thing you could do are sue them and make proper report on Scam Accusations or Investigations to make more people aware about this problem.

Just in case, i've archived all threads at https://archive.fo/1wCF9, https://archive.fo/q9W5v and https://archive.fo/SSBwf

Must be on-chain, unless all bitcoin node also connected to side-chain network. Otherwise, the transaction would be invalid or can't be fully verified.


Yes and i already mention it needs hard-fork. It's not really best idea since it's just my random thought. It also have weakness, such as :
1. Bloating blockchain, even though transaction size is slightly slower
2. Make basic address validity check useless and more user will send to wrong address
3. Full nodes client require another DB/dataset just to store pair of bitcoin address and string
4. Grow incentives to sell linked private key for linked bitcoin address with good string


That would make Bitcoin decentralization useless


That's what i think as well, most people even don't remember their own bank account number/id

The only choice is hardware wallet such as https://www.ledger.com/products/ledger-nano-s and https://trezor.io/start/

Make sure you buy from official store or official distributor and check if the device is genuine or not tempered.
1. For Ledger Nano S : https://support.ledgerwallet.com/hc/en-us/articles/360002481534-Check-if-device-is-genuine
2. For Trezor : https://www.reddit.com/r/TREZOR/comments/58evyn/_/

Edit : looks like bones261 answer a bit faster. But hardware wallet is still best choice since it's secure, but convenient/easy to use

Yes, but 51% attack costs is still higher since ratio of BTC difficulty, ASIC efficiency and BTC price is worse compared with past event where a pool actually have 50+% hashrate.

Also, this topic has been discussed many times, so you should do some research to get more information/ideas.
One of recent discussion thread : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5072301.0;all


and i thought GHash was first pool with 50+% hashrate

More than ever? Have you forget that GHash pool which was popular in past had more than 50% hashrate and they could launch attack anytime they want. They also could get away with non-obvious attack such as intentionally don't included transaction in a block.

Regarding your theory where multiple pool work together to launch 51%, they could do it anytime as they always have big hashrate percentage.
But IMO, Bitcoin is protected from 51% attack with game theory where these pools choose not to risk profit they could earn from mining Bitcoin where Bitcoin price might rise in future and losing trust they build for some years.

Or just disable signature on Jr. Member rank since newcomers (aka people who genuinely interested with Bitcoin technology/discussion) who don't plan join signature campaign still need feature such as no PM restriction and can post images.

AFAIK yes, even though there might be another way to track LN capacity that i dont know.
But FYI, it doesn't reflect amount of BTC you can sent through LN since that depends on amount of BTC that can send/receive on each channel which used on your payment routing path.

Track LN network capacity is pretty easy since all you need to do is check for 2-of-2 multi-sig HLTC transaction on bitcoin network. It's simple and effective method as almost nobody use such transaction format.

Private network/channel only prevent your transaction tracked from services such as https://1ml.com/, but it's not really private if you make channel directly to public node. CMIIW.