Probably not, fees have dropped today.

A re-broadcast does not accelerate a confirmation. The only entities that can speed up confirmations are the major miners. Also, anyone that pays to re-broadcast a transaction is giving away money.

I first want to point out that everyone's answers (including mine) are primarily opinions because deciding which coin is the "real" coin is entirely a matter of opinion and politics. Generally, the "real" coin is arrived at by social dominance.

Is BTC or BCH (or BSV) the "real" Bitcoin? It depends on the opinion of the person you talk to. The genesis block is the same for all three and all three have had significant changes to the protocol. There are no technical reasons for claiming that one is the "real" Bitcoin and that the others are not. It is a personal preference.


1.   But why is it that one network is being criticised for not being immutable while the other isn’t?

Neither is 100% immutable. Because of the reasons for the forks, which might indicate the potential for further changes, some might consider the Ethereum chain to be less immutable.

2.   Why do people (including highly ranked Bitcointalk members) think of Ethereum Classic as the ‘real Ethereum’?

The Ethereum fork fixed a problem with a contract and not with Ethereum itself. The breach of trust is the real issue.

3.   If that is how it should be, shouldn’t we also have a ‘real Bitcoin’ where two addresses hold 92 billion coins each?

A branch without the fix would have failed, so it is irrelevant in the end. You could rationally say the the "real" Bitcoin had a fatal flaw and was replaced by a new better Bitcoin, but your opinion would be in the minority.
 
4.   Why is it not OK to perform a fork to refund stolen ether due to a buggy code, but it is OK to invalidate bitcoin blocks due to wrongly generated bitcoins?

The difference is that the Bitcoin fork fixed a problem with Bitcoin itself, and the Ethereum fork fixed a problem with a contract and not with Ethereum itself. Whether or not it is OK depends on the person. Also, note that invalidating blocks is a normal function in Bitcoin. All of the transactions (except for the broken transactions and the coinbase transactions) were still confirmed after the fork.

5.   Is bitcoin not attacked for the fork because the bug led to the creation of bitcoins much higher than the maximum supply?

If the bug wasn't fixed, Bitcoin would have failed.

6.   Would the opinions have been any different if a much lower number of coins were generated?

No. It wasn't a just single incident. It was a bug that anyone could exploit.

You don't have to own bitcoins to be in the club.

There might be other reasons, but I think these are the major ones:

• 1. It was the first.
• 2. It is the most well-known.
• 3. It is the most secure.

You didn't specify which country. In the U.S., this applies: https://www.irs.gov/faqs/capital-gains-losses-and-sale-of-home/losses-homes-stocks-other-property/losses-homes-stocks-other-property-1

Who are the most prolifically bad posters on Bitcointalk?

Criteria for nomination

The poster must:
1. post an excessive number of posts or post frequent walls of text, and
2. require careful study in order to be understood, and
3. show lack of logic and reason and exhibit a potential disconnect from reality.

Note that basic grammar and spelling mistakes are not sufficient, and poor English by itself is not a criteria.


Not Criteria

1. Spammers
2. Scammers
3. Bounty program posters
4. People you don't like.
5. People you disagree with.

My nominees:

cryptoboss2020:  over the last 6 months, cryptoboss2020 has posted an average of 4.8 posts of utter nonsense each day in a variety of forums.

Example:


OpenCryptoSystems: In just the last month, OpenCryptoSystems has made over 90 posts that rival those of cryptoboss2020.

Example:

Honorable Mention:

Polo7: Polo7 hasn't been around since last November, but the brief appearance included some bold and ridiculous predictions that never panned out. I wonder if Polo7 is the same person as OpenCryptoSystems.

Example:

A group of members of the BitClub network came to a Silicon Valley Bitcoin meetup a few years ago, in 2014 or 2015. I tried to warn them that it was a Ponzi scheme, but they didn't want to believe it.

This might be interesting: https://github.com/odolvlobo/bip39

Specifically, https://github.com/odolvlobo/bip39/blob/master/cs/missing.coffee

I didn't follow your explanation, so sorry if I am arguing a moot point, but here is why it is 1/16:

The checksum value in a 12-word phrase is 4 bits and it is constant, assuming that the last word is not variable. There are 16 possible computed checksums but only one matches the expected value, and since computed checksums are random, then 1/16 of the computed checksums will match the expected value.

Now, if the last word is variable, then the expected checksum is not constant. In this case, there are 7 bits that can be changed and the other 4 are the expected checksum and are determined. If you try all possible 2048 words, then for each value of the first 7 bits, only 1 out of 16 values for the last 4 bits will match the computed checksum.

Or, in general, in a random string of bits, of which the last 4 are expected to match the computed checksum for the other bits, only 1 of 16 of these random strings will be valid.

That article won't age well as the price is already back up to $39k.

Eventually, the price will level out and it will become a investment that is as boring as gold.

This is a technical explanation of how RBF and CPFP work. Sorry, it is not a tutorial because their usage depend on your wallet. Also, note that even if your wallet doesn't support RBF or CPFP, understanding how they work gives you other options.

Replace-By-Fee (RBF)

RBF is straightforward. A stuck transaction is replaced by reusing the same coins in a similar transaction that pays a higher fee. A miner can only confirm one of the two transactions, so they will confirm the one that pays the higher fee. If the fee is high enough, they will confirm it immediately. The lower-fee transaction becomes invalid, so it is just discarded. Generally, your wallet must support RBF, because it normally won't allow you to reuse the same coins in another transaction.

Child-Pays-For-Parent (CPFP)

First, CPFP is based on an important requirement for confirmation. A transaction is funded by previous transactions, so in order for a transaction to be confirmed, the previous transactions that fund it must be confirmed. For example, suppose address Y is funded by this transaction:

     X ⟶ Y

Then, in order to confirm a transaction sending from Y,

     Y ⟶ Z

the transaction X ⟶ Y must be confirmed first. (Side note: both transactions can be confirmed in the same block).

Now, let's say that you spend the bitcoins at address A, sending them to an address B plus a change address C:

     A ⟶ B + C

You post your transaction, A ⟶ B + C, with a low fee.

To speed up the transaction's confirmation, the owner of B can use B in a new transaction paying a very high fee, or if the transaction has change, C, you can do the same with C.

     B ⟶ D, or
     C ⟶ E

If the transaction fees for B ⟶ D or C ⟶ E are high enough, a miner will want to confirm them immediately. But, the miner must also confirm A ⟶ B +C in order to confirm either one of them, so the miner will confirm it also.

In essence, the follow-up transaction is also paying for the previous transaction. Note: Some wallets do not allow you to spend unconfirmed outputs, i.e. you can't spend B or C until the stuck transaction is confirmed.


From: https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinBeginners/comments/kwo7b9/explaining_of_cpfp/

I suggest that you wake up from your irrational exuberance. There is a good reason why the bitcoiners say, "Don't invest more than you are willing to lose."

What do you say to these people? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5308605.0

So, yes, be prepared to lose all of your money.

Can you point me to data that shows that economies of scale are a dominant factor? I would love to see it because it is important to know.

Your first rookie mistake is trying to trade short-term. It is no better than gambling. If the volatility keeps you up at night, it isn't worth it.

Your second rookie mistake is believing that only rookies make these mistakes. Nobody knows what the price is going to do, although there are a lot of liars and buffoons that claim they do. Of course, once they are stopped out, you never hear from them again but they always seem to be replaced by a new crop of liars and buffoons.

Just buy some and sit on it and don't even think about it.

I believe that it also has been stated that advertising indicates that a person is acting as a business.

I used to be a big trader on LocalBitcoins a long time ago. I felt that it was an excellent way to help people get started with Bitcoin because many buyers were newbies and I would help them get set up. However, after traders started getting arrested, I had to stop. I was charging a fee for my time and risk, which along with my listing on LocalBitcoins could justify classifying me as a business by the people that were looking for someone to arrest.

I believe the statute of limitations has passed, so I am now safe from prosecution.

https://localbitcoins.com/accounts/profile/odolvlobo/

I am not an expert, but it seems to me it would be reasonable to claim that all transactions on a Lightning channel are not realized until the channel is closed. That is when you find out the actual amount transacted, plus how else do you account for transactions in which you are just an intermediary?

If that is the case, then Lightning makes taxes on cryptocurrency transactions much simpler.

I use bitcoins to buy gold online. It is better than all of the other modes of payment -- lower price than credit cards or paypal, cheaper than bank wire, faster than personal check.

I also buy stuff on Amazon only using bitcoins, through Purse.io. It is a little inconvenient, but you can get a nice discount.

I don't really care about Satoshi's "vision", or her ideals, or the sanctity of her words, but in the interest of accuracy ...