You are right about how a bank account number works, but take note that there's a big difference between a bank account number and a bitcoin address.

Even in theory, it's impossible that there are two different persons with the same bank account number. The bank account number is given to you by a centralized service while your bitcoin address is generated by yourself and in theory it's possible that two persons generate the same bitcoin address.

I just tested walletexplorer. It worked even with the first 7 characters.
I also tested walletexplorer with the first 6 characters. It brought me a different transaction, not the one I was looking for.


I think if you enter a few first characters of a transaction (at least 6, it doesn't work with 5 characters at all) and there are more than 1 transaction starting with those characters, it shows the one that is alphabetically ahead.

That can happen only if you use a malicious tool. There have been cases that people got a used pre-generated address from a malicious paper wallet generator.
If your private key is generated randomly, it's impossible that you generate an address that has been generated by someone else before (Of course, in theory that's possible).

In theory, that's possible. In practice, that's impossible.
Take note that there are 2¹⁶⁰ valid bitcoin addresses (There are even more addresses if consider all types of bitcoin addresses).


No.
Note that your bitcoin address in generated through some mathematical calculations from a random number and you don't need internet connection for that.

I feel you didn't understand o_e_l_e_o correctly. You don't lose your bitcoin just because you encrypted your wallet.

Let's say you have an unencrypted wallet and have generated n addresses till now. You just backed up your wallet and now you want to encrypt your wallet. You encrypt your wallet and you have two backups now. One is the backup of the unencrypted wallet and the other one is the backup of the encrypted wallet.
The encrypted wallet will include all the n addresses generated by the unencrypted wallet, but the (n+1)th address generated by the encrypted wallet will be different from the (n+1)th address generated by unencrypted wallet.

So, if you have bitcoin on each of the first n addresses, you can use each of the backups for recovering your fund. If you have bitcoin on the (n+1)th address of the encrypted wallet, you can't use the backup of the unencrypted wallet for recovering your fund.

o_e_l_e_o, correct me if I am wrong, please.

That's still true.
Take a look at the following image. It's the message displayed by bitcoin core after I added a passphrase to an unencrypted wallet.

If they need merit for being able to post in bounty section, they have to make post in other boards and we will probably see more spam in the forum. It's also possible we will see more abuse of the merit system. I don't like encouraging them to post outside bounty section.

If the change is backward compatible, it's a soft fork.
For example, the taproot upgrade was a soft fork, because you didn't have to upgrade your software and you could still use the older version of bitcoin core. If you are a miner, you can still mine the blocks with an old version of bitcoin core. (Of course, if you are miner and use an old version of bitcoin core, you would miss taproot transactions).

If the change isn't backward compatible, it's a hard fork. For example, in 2010 there was an upgrade for fixing a bug and all nodes had to upgrade their software.

To add to pooya87's post:

You can check the transaction details on a block explorer to extract the public key of the sending address(es).

If the address is P2PKH (legacy), the public key is the last 66 characters (if it's a compressed key) or the last 130 characters (of it's an uncompressed key) of the sigscript.
If the the address is P2WPKH (native segwit) or P2WPKH-P2SH (nested segwit), the public key is the second part of witness.
If the address is P2SH, P2WSH or P2TR, you should decode the redeem script to extract the public keys.

It has been changed and he is not a DT member anymore.
If you go to this page, you will see this: mr.relax (-1)
Since neither you nor GazetaBitcoin are DT1 member now and only Nestade is a DT1 member, another DT1 member has excluded mr.relax.

You are right. The user in question isn't a DT member.
If you go to trust page of 1miau and add ;dt to the end of the URL, you will see mr.relax's feedback as untrusted feedback. This means that he is not a DT member.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2143453;dt

Binance send the fund from their own wallet, not your wallet.

You can withdraw the fund from the exchange to your own address (I mean an address which is fully controlled by you and you own its private key) and then send the fund to the recipient in another tranaction. In this way, you will be able to sign message from your address to prove it's owned by you.

Due to secp256k1 ECDSA standard, the number of valid private keys is slightly less than 2²⁵⁶.
The number of valid addresses is much smaller. There are 2¹⁶⁰ valid addresses (more addresses, if we consider different types) which means that each address can be generated by 2⁹⁶ private keys on average.

In the current version of bitcoin core, you don't have to back up your wallet regularly.
In the very old versions of bitcoin core, you had to back up your wallet again, once you generated the 101st address.
Versions prior to 0.13.0 of bitcoin generated 100 random addresses and once they were all used, it generated anther 100 addresses.

In the case OP has used a version prior to 0.13.0 and has generated more than 100 addresses, it's possible that the first backup doesn't include all the addresses.

You have a wallet and you have two backups of that. One is encrypted and the other one is unencrypted. Am I getting you correctly?
If so, you can use your unencrypted file and make transaction without any need to enter a passphrase.

Edit:
As mentioned by o_e_l_e_o below, the unencrypted file is useless if you want to recover an address generated after the encryption.
If you haven't used your wallet after the encryption, you should be able to access your fund using the unencrypted wallet.

The (full) nodes verify every transaction they receive.
If your transaction is valid, the (full) node that has received it adds your transaction to its mempool (a database containing unconfirmed transactions) and broadcast it to the other nodes that it is connected to.

I am not sure I am understanding you correctly.
Are you saying that it may be possible that Satoshi can change how bitcoin works? If so, you should know that bitcoin is an open-source project and there is nothing hidden from the people. Satoshi has no control over bitcoin network.

I haven't ever used the wallet in question and I don't have any information about that. But getting a segwit address easily isn't really an advantage. There are many wallets that can generate segwit addresses easily.
Also, I don't understand what you mean by usable segwit address. Any valid bitcoin address is usable.

The RP exchange rate depends on BTC price.
The exchange rate has been 1 sat/RP for a long time because there are only 8 decimal places for bitcoin and the value of each RP can't be less than 1 satoshi.

Each reward point is worth 3.75% of the base reward. (Click here to see the old post made by TheQuin.)
As the base reward is $0.002, each RP should be worth $0.000075. This means that each RP should worth around 0.3 satoshi now.

There's something even worse than that.
Take a look at their charity program. They collect BTC and ETH from people as donation to earthquake victims in Turkey and Syria and instead send BUSD to some NGOs.