Hm, I wonder how BlueWallet's flipping the min relay fee error on and off then. If you need a restart to enable <1 on a <1 server, what if you switch from LoyceV's to a ≥1 server but don't restart before pushing another <1 TX?

In Electrum itself, I only got it to work when I add the port number:
Which Electrum itself adds ":s" to:

Good to know my server also works with BlueWallet

No national government is truly absolutely trustworthy, not even Hong Kong or the UAE, let alone the US. We have no guarantee that they will always maintain that stance or that the new government will be crypto-friendly. Any country can change its attitude towards cryptocurrencies, if it feels it no longer benefits from it. That's the nature of government, they always put their own interests first and not the future of bitcoin or crypto.

If I had to choose the most trustworthy country, I think El Salvador is the one to consider, not Hong Kong or UAE. Has Hong Kong or UAE made bitcoin legal tender?

Bluewallet 7.2.1 is now out for Android users. People can now send less than 1 sat/vbyte in their bitcoin transaction. You can see how I did it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5556044.msg65860312#msg65860312

I tried to send the transaction using 0.4 sat/vbyte with the server Bluewallet connected me to, but it returned a min relay fee error.




I tried to connect to electrum.labrie.ca server but it did not work. Maybe it will later work but it did not work:



I connected to LoyceV Electrum server, electrum.loyce.club and it was connected.



I tried to make the transaction again but it returned min relay fee error.


I closed the Bluewallet app, reopened it and tried it again and it worked with LoyceV server.

They kinda have. Each and every transaction has "nLockTime" field. Which means, that each and every transaction, can be confirmed after a given block, or a given timestamp. Of course, users could just set nSequence to "0xffffffff", and then "nLockTime" is ignored. Or they could simply use "0x00000000" as their locktime, and get it confirmed at any time, after the Genesis Block.

So, transactions don't have "reliable" timestamps, that you can "trust", but well, many wallets put the current block count inside locktime, to prevent an attack, where miners could constantly reorg a given block, and collect fees from transactions, which were made later. And by analyzing "nLockTime" field, maybe you cannot determine with 100% accuracy, when a given transaction was created, but you can at least assume, when a given user wanted to see it confirmed.

Also, when some transactions are mined, then the more Proof of Work is put on top of it, the more you can be sure, that once some user decided to commit to some timestamp, it wasn't easy to change it, because it would require re-mining the whole transaction. Of course, users can also use locktime as a nonce, but then, it is not that different from what real miners do, by making their timestamps in a two hour window.

So, for many transactions, locktime is not reliable. But if you have a user, which uses the default settings, then "nLockTime" can be pretty much accurate, and commit at least to the block, which was the tip of the chain, when that transaction was made.

Perhaps there are discrepancies in how the sources gather their data to arrive at their list, because if I was to be asked to list top 5 cryptocurrency friendly countries I wouldn't omit El Salvador in my list due to the obvious Nwada made mention of. But then do their citizens make use of bitcoin as much as citizens in other countries that are yet to declare bitcoin a legal tender in their own jurisdiction do?  Like Nigeria for example, in Africa it's one of the countries with the highest cryptocurrency embrace by the citizens but by regulatory policies they can't be counted for a crypto friendly country.

Hi Charles,

The guide you showed me is interesting. Thank you. However, I tried and it does not work. Any idea why ?
 
https://i.postimg.cc/qR01DFrf/Op-Return.png

That holder must be living in retirement if he finally sold those Bitcoins he’s been holding. As for the impact, $44 million is just a tiny percentage compared to the volume on big exchanges. It’s not enough to cause panic - billions were reportedly liquidated, and that’s what caused the dump. But the market has already bounced back, so we’re fine.

That was most likely an early adopter.

But here’s the big question, could it be Satoshi’s wallet?

I've noticed that too many people blindly trust what they see on social media and in search engine results. Facebook is very popular in my region and I see lots of my friends sharing information without really understanding how true it is. They also don't check the source. I have seen cases when the page clearly says in its name, title, that it's a troll page and people still share it like it's a serious information.

If I were you, I would teach that kid how to filter information on the internet. I would teach him that you shouldn't depend only on one source and you have to check the same information on multiple websites, including forums too.