There are 3 types of address :
1. Standard/Legacy address (starts with 1)
 * Have highest transaction size/fee
 * Still have Transaction malleability
 * Compatible with all wallet
2. P2SH SegWit (starts with 3)
 * Have lower transaction size/fee
 * Don't have Transaction malleability
 * Compatible with all wallet, because it's backward compatible
3. Bech32/Native SegWit (starts with bc1)
 * Have lowest transaction size/fee
 * Don't have Transaction malleability
 * Only compatible with wallet which support SegWit

TLDR:
1. Choose Bech32/Native SegWit address if you use service which support it.
2. Choose P2SH SegWit address if you use service which don't support it. This is best option for majority users.
3. Only choose Standard/Legacy address if your wallet don't offer P2SH SegWit address and you use service which don't support SegWit.

Both solutions Higher node loads with paid full-nodes (similar to Masternodes, i think) & lower node loads and rely on voluntary have flaws. Even with solution similar with masternodes, attacker simply could run more masternodes, even if they need to buy/steal coins needed to run masternodes
But AFAIK majority of attack scenario require hard-fork/change protocol rules/high PoW amount which require lots of costs.

But storage isn't big problem on public permissionless blockchain, the bigger problems are :
1. Bandwitch to receive/send block and transaction
2. Computation power/time needed to verify block and transaction
3. Storage speed and RAM amount/speed
4. Ensuring normal bitcoiner can run full nodes without expensive device
5. There's delay/latency because time needed to receive, verify and broadcast all transaction/blocks
6. etc. (i forget few reasons)

To be fair, i doubt any Google employee have any knowledge about Cryptocurrency and it's services. So it's obvious they wouldn't know whether the advertised website/product is scam or not.
But i think the real reason is they don't want let their user enjoy decentralized system (which is opposite of their service) or/and don't care whether the advertised website/product is scam or not

Only massive manual report by users can solve this problem.

Can't we stop claiming Coin X or Technology Y as Satoshi's original vision? Even though Satoshi made huge contribution, that doesn't mean Satoshi's vision is perfect or still relevant/up-to-date with current condition.


You're mostly right.

But most people who support huge block size don't think regular people should able to run full nodes. If only rich miners or people who can run full nodes, they could change the protocol rules secretly and regular people wouldn't know about it.

There aren't any and there won't be any because :
1. LN continuously improved even when it's "ready" for most Bitcoiner.
2. With LN development complexity, developer might found bug that could slow down the development.
3. Since it's open source, there's no "deadline" which means developer/contributor might don't focus on LN development.

But TBH, i think we should ignore Bitcoin Cash in Bitcoin Development & Technical Discussion since both coins have/will have totally different scaling solution/approach.

I've made thread about similar problem at Do you think Bitcoin need to change it's PoW algorithm?. But changing/tweak/modify PoW algorithm is difficult once ASIC is available for public, hashrate dominated by ASIC or the algorithm isn't designed to combat ASIC (such as SHA-256).

For Monero, tweak CryptoNight algorithm isn't difficult since mining with CPU/GPU still profitable (which means ASIC haven't take over the network/hashrate), tweak CryptoNight don't change hash speed of CPU/GPU and most importantly majority community agree with their Core team decision.

For Bitcoin, it's hard task because :
1. ASIC completely dominate Bitcoin mining.
2. Changing algorithm to ASIC resistance is difficult since the network hashrate would be very low which makes block generation very slow and make Bitcoin network vulnerable during transaction since that means attacking bitcoin network 51% attack will be far easier. Even when considering there are ways to "tweak" SHA-256 just to break ASIC
3. Getting community approval over tweak/change which require hard-fork is difficult, especially from ASIC miners.

I think tweak Ethash algorithm at this point is good idea since the ASIC isn't available for public yet, but without Ethereum Foundation or majority community approval, your idea won't happen (at least without chain-split).
But i think enforcing dedicated memory requirements won't do much since ASIC/FPGA manufacture simply can add more memory, unless your solution is similar with CryptoNight which force high-speed/low-latency for efficient mining such as L2/L3 cache which is expensive in big capacity. CMIIW.

It's possible, but current Bitcoin isn't user friendly since it's stack-based programming language and you can't create complex smart contract since Bitcoin scripting isn't turing-complete (no iteration/looping).
There are project such as Ivy which make Bitcoin scripting/smart contract more user-friendly.

I'd recommend popular altcoin with smart-contract if you really need smart contract capability.

Potential problem :
1. If your i5 type is Low/Ultra Low Power or before 2nd generation, i think you might have performance problem if you're running full nodes and video editing at same time.
2. I don't know about your notebook specification/type, but there's chance you couldn't right/optimal driver for your notebook parts.
3. I don't recommend run full nodes 24/7 with notebook, since it's not designed to run 24/7 and could reduce it's lifespan.

Suggestion :
1. If your DVD Drive is removable, you can replaced it with your old HDD with help of tool called "Drive Caddy and use the HDD space for your SSD.

XRP is centralized cryptocurrency and shouldn't be compared with any decentralized cryptocurrency, furthermore companies/bank make partnership with XRP because they need their technology such as xCurrent, xRapid and xVia where it's cryptocurrency or the blockchain isn't really needed and those companies/bank rarely use it's cryptocurrency.
But i won't dent XRP could overtake BTC in marketcap if they actively promote their cryptocurrency to investor and their technology to companies/bank and even raising their maximum coin supply

There are some proposal such as CoinJoin which proposed by Gregory Maxwell, even though this idea isn't perfect and without proper feature upgrade/implementation, it will leaks users info. Some coin such as DASH already use CoinJoin, but many people say the implementation was done badly.
But, i think Bulletproof's proposal is better when users need privacy

More info : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249

Hi BTCforJoe,

I'd like to be Backup Merit sponsor since i have lots of unused sMerit(s) and usually i only give merit for posts about technical knowledge. Just PM me and i'll send merits to the winner.
Also, i think it would be better if you use the Signature to encourage SegWit adoption as well.

While it's not same with what you mentioned, it's possible if you use OP_RETURN function.

You need use BIP38 to encrypt your private and add your encrypted private key to a transaction with OP_RETURN, even though OP_RETURN function isn't supposed to store any data besides transaction/P2SH for features such as multi-sig. Also, it's risky to expose your encrypted private key, even if you encrypt it with strong passphrase.
You also need to remember the transaction ID and the process isn't user friendly.

If you really wish to do that, there are some guides/info that could help you :
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=453086.0
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/36478/how-can-i-search-for-op-return-data
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/25224/what-is-a-step-by-step-way-to-insert-data-in-op-return/38641

I don't recommend this method, keep your bitcoin wallet/private key/recovery seed safe with backup is better. Also, CMIIW.

Bagi agan-agan yang masih mau jual/beli Bitcoin dengan cara COD (Cash/Collect on delivery), sebaiknya dilakukan ditempat yang ramai dan ditemani oleh teman/keluarga.
Apalagi setau ane tidak ada regulasi/hukum yang mengatur jika Bitcoin/altcoin dicuri oleh orang lain, kemungkinan besar Bitcoin/altcoin agan tidak kembali meskipun penjahatnya tertangkap.

Sumber : https://kumparan.com/@kumparannews/polisi-tangkap-perampok-bitcoin-senilai-rp-2-3-miliar-di-taiwan

Edit (More Info) :

Mungkin agan bingung kenapa ada orang yang memilih beli/jual bitcoin COD, alasan yang umum adalah :
1. Orang tersebut tidak punya akun bank.
2. Orang tersebut tidak mau melakukan verifikasi yang menggunakan data pribadi.
3. Orang tersebut adalah orang yang sangat menjaga privasinya.
4. Orang tersebut kapok menggunakan exchange, contohnya karena uang orang tersebut tidak bisa digunakan karena alasan "keamanan".
5. Orang tersebut menganggap exchange ribet karena proses verifikasi, deposit dan withdraw lama/ribet.

Ada beberapa website/tempat untuk jual/beli bitcoin secara COD maupun tanpa exchange seperti http://localbitcoins.com/ dimana buyer/seller hanya perlu memberikan beberapa informasi pribadi (yang tentunya tidak meminta data pribadi sebanyak exchange).
Semoga bermanfaat

Actually, maximum block weight is about 4000 kWU (unit measurement), not 4MB. With block weight, maximum block size we can see is near 4MB , not 4MB, but it's possible on specific transaction scenario and every transaction use Bech32. So, ideally we can see 2MB block size even if majority transaction use SegWit.


True, also SegWit P2SH (which have backward compability) and SegWit Bech32 also a factor how much transaction can fit into a block.

Link : https://blockstream.com/2018/02/21/bulletproofs-faster-rangeproofs-and-much-more.html


As far as i know, the main advantage of Bulletproof is their zero-proof knowledge with more efficient transaction size and faster confirmation. So, while it's similar to CT, it's more efficient which is perfect for bitcoin where scaling is the one of the most important things.
But i don't see any discussion mention which says it can reduce blocksize since it's bigger than normal signature size even though it's far smaller than CT signature size.

Also, zero-proof knowledge is widely used and i'm sure developer will take lots of time for debug/testing to make sure scenario you mention never happen.
I would say this is interesting technology since it could give Bitcoin user more privacy/anonymity without bloat the transaction size too much, even Monero plan to research this technology as well.

Please CMIIW.

For now, yes and it's been proved by the fact we can use lowest possible fees (1 satoshi/byte or 0.02$ for normal TX) and get confirmation with good speed.

But no worry since other solutions such as LN will coming soon and other solutions such as MAST, Schnorr signatures/MuSig & other which can reduce transaction size and increase privacy on some conditions.
Also, i'm sure the community will agree to raise block size/weight once there's proof that majority users still can run full nodes even after increasing block size/weight, especially it will be needed if we want to see bitcoin ready for mass adoption.

Just read this article (https://getmonero.org/2018/02/11/PoW-change-and-key-reuse.html) and i wonder if Bitcoin need to change it's PoW algorithm (maybe to algorithm that Monero currently use) to preserve decentralization, especially such attempt such as Antbleed already happen.
I think it's necessary, because i think another companies or government will attempt to "control" bitcoin network by take control over mining process. What do you think?

True, but i assuming the users use secure/stealth connection such as VPN, Proxy or Tor when use SPV wallet since the user have privacy concern, but might don't have good internet connection for full nodes.
The real risks is Electrum server/nodes can get list of address that requested by someone and that someone can be tracked easily if he post even an address on public discussion on internet.

Blockchain.info keeps your wallet file which contain encrypted private key/seed, but they claim they don't have access to user's wallet and it's been proved with their open-source software even though i think there's no sure way to verify if blockchain.info use exactly same software within their website/app without add any backdoor.
As for other private info they store, i think only your email address, IP/browser details & mobile number (if you add one).

If you have privacy concern, i suggest you to use Desktop wallet, whether it's SPV or full nodes wallet such as Electrum and Bitcoin Core.

I've been reading topics about upcoming/proposals for Bitcoin including MAST, but i'm still confused about such things :
1. Will MAST allow complex Smart Contract or still only can use P2SH ?
2. Since MAST can increase user privacy, i wonder if MAST also can increase privacy when user use LN (especially some users have concern if they let user use connect to other users through their channel and turned out it's criminal acitivity)?
3. GitHub page mentioned MAST will be soft fork, but i wonder how will the backward compatibility works, is it similar with backward compatibility that SegWit use?