Every time you post one of these, somebody has to remind you that withdrawing bitcoins from Coinbase is not the same as buying them. I guess it is my turn this time.

It may be too late for your brother, but for everyone else:

https://medium.com/@pamelawjd/inheritance-planning-for-cryptocurrencies-3-steps-in-3-minutes-83ebb3e916a2

You can make exceptions for certain blocks, but it is better if you don't.

My assumption is that he is talking about a side chain with no subsidy, therefore there is little incentive to mine empty blocks.

Updated 2021-03-05

Do you mean like this?

https://www.coinstar.com/bitcoin

I don't see why not, except that it requires users to accept single confirmations as final. But, I think the people involved in recent transactions would continue to mine in order to avoid that requirement.

Why do you need to know?

Ownership is a social convention, and it is possible for different societies to have different conventions.

Personally, it makes no sense to me that someone would pay for an NFT because an NFT signifies nothing to me. To me, ownership signifies the ability to control the access and use of an object, whether physical or digital, and an NFT does not do that.

However, given the influences of the virtual world on their lives, I can believe that people born in the Internet Age might have a different sense of the meaning of ownership, where virtual ownership without possession or control can be a real thing.

That is another common misconception. Mining does not stop in 2140. The subsidy is reduced to by half every 4 years approximately (the "halving"), and it will be reduced to 0 by the year 2140, and block rewards after that will consist of only transaction fees.

Satoshi holds an estimated 5% of all the bitcoins, not 50%, and that assumes that they are not lost.

It is an obvious scam, and I suggest that you remove all the details before you are labeled as a scammer.

Every miner works on the next block, but the contents of the next block is different for each miner. Miners are free to choose which transactions to include and exclude from a block. Miners race to make their block the next block.


The input for the hash is the block "header", which contains information about the block. The header also contains the previous block's hash. This chain of hashes determines the sequence of the blocks and also is why it is called a block chain.


No, that is a common misconception. While counting the number of leading zeros was mentioned in the whitepaper, Bitcoin was never implemented using that. In the actual implementation, the block's hash must be less than a "target" hash (compared as numbers) in order to qualify. The difficulty is computed from the target hash value (it is the inverse). It is used as a metric by people but it is not used by the protocol.


The nonce field is also used for varying the hash. In fact, that is its only function.

In addition, the merkle root can be varied by modifying the contents of the block. Since the coinbase transaction pays a different address for each miner, its hash will be different for each miner, and thus the merkle root will be different for each miner, and the block's hash will be different for each miner even if everything else is the same.

No. By definition, economic efficiency is related to transaction costs. I don't think that the cost of buying and selling houses is a primary factor in the lack of affordable housing. The primary factor is the lack of supply.


Compare to this chart that goes back to 1959. It shows a bigger story:




A coin will not generate money or change behavior. If you want to create a program that funds affordable housing, you need a program, not a coin.

In general, because the aggregate demand for housing is fixed (it basically follows population), the solution to the lack of affordable housing is to increase the aggregate supply. Unfortunately, most laws and regulations, including those intending to make housing affordable, have the opposite effect by reducing the incentives to build more housing.


Probably not. Cryptocurrencies might be able to reduce inefficiencies or increase transparency, but those problems don't seem to be major contributors to the lack of affordable housing.


Your chart needs to go back further. The housing situation was not normal between 1992 and 2009, so your chart may be misleading. Also, the chart's title contradicts the chart itself. The chart clearly shows that new housing starts are not flattening out.


The idea that a new cryptocurrency can "fund" something is a misconception.

Anyway, those are my opinions.

My overall advice is this: mining is not appropriate for newbies. You won't make a lot of money (if you make any at all) and there are many other things to learn about first.



You don't have a "wallet address" at coinbase because you don't have a wallet. You have an account at coinbase with a deposit address. I suggest that you avoid using the coinbase wallet on your phone because coinbase has two apps.  Both are generally referred to as wallets, but only one is actually a wallet, and that ambiguity can lead to the confusion demonstrated by your question.

If you are going to use coinbase, install their app, but not their wallet.



You can't mine Bitcoin with a PC, but you can mine other coins and get paid in bitcoins. That is what NiceHash does. In order to decide whether or not to mine coins, you need to know your revenue (the amount you are paid by NiceHash) and your costs (the cost of your electricity and equipment). I think NiceHash is good for starting out, but I don't know what to do with the problems you have. Check the Bitcoin Forum > Alternate cryptocurrencies > Mining (Altcoins) forums here for NiceHash info as well as info about mining altcoins.

Why use margin? You have enough to cover the entire amount, and you will be paying interest on money that you already have.

Regardless, margin is not appropriate for new traders. You will lose everything.

As the others have written, groups that provide "signals" are pump-and-dump scams, or are at best cesspools of pump-and-dump scams. Don't waste your time.

Look up ECDH. It is a way of combining two private keys to create a shared key without revealing the private keys.

One advantage of using ECDH with the system you are proposing are that all the keys are deterministic and known at the start, so the opponent cannot manipulate their private keys without being detected.

Another advantage is that the actual keys used to determine the outcomes cannot be predicted because they are derived from the private keys of both opponents.


52! is a 225 bit number, so 256 bits should be sufficient for generating a random sequence of cards.

I bet a simple shuffle like this will work:
   

It looks like it is rejected simply because its category is under virtual currency.  Can you control the category? If not, then you have to get them to change the organization of their categories. That will never happen because you are dealing with a bureaucracy.