How to use multisig for a safe bitcoin transaction without involving a 3rd party
In order to create an escrow that doesnt require a third party , and insure that nobody get scammed in a bitcoin transaction, how about the following protocol: Alice order a phone to Bob for 1 BTC. they create a multisig with 2 out of 2 signatures required (A+B) they create and sign a transaction that put 2 BTC from Alice and 1 BTC from Bob into that address They create a transaction to send 2 btc for Bob and 1 btc for Alice when Alice gets the phone, she signs the transaction and send the signature to Bob, Bob signs it as well and get the Tx broadcasted. This way any scam will result in the loss of the scammer's BTC: If Alice lies that she hasn't got the phone, she is losing 2 BTC for 1 phone, assuming the phone's value is 1 BTC she lost 1 BTC of value in the process (Honest Bob is losing 1BTC+1 phone = 2BTC of value) If Bob is a scammer and doesn't send anything, he is losing 1BTC (And honest Alice is losing 2 BTC) This would protect against all scams designed to generate profit for the scammer. And defeat all scams aimed at generating a loss for the victim at no cost.
Good and safe wallet for few bitcoin transactions?
Hi guys, I need a good and safe wallet for some quite a minimal usage and I won't be holding many bitcoins there for a long time. I downloaded Exodus, but I read some bad reviews about it and I am a bit worried. What are the recommendations here? Thanks in advance.
Good and safe bitcoin wallet for few transactions.
Hi guys, I need a good and safe wallet for some quite a minimal usage and I won't be holding many bitcoins there for a long time. I downloaded Exodus, but I read some bad reviews about it and I am a bit worried. What are the recommendations here? Thanks in advance.
Buy and Sell Bitcoin in India with Shiftal- One of the Best P2P Cryptocurrency Exchange Trading Platform that provides multilayer Escrow protection for safe transactions with 70+ Payment Methods. Easy UI, Reliable, Secure.
GMCOIN is now in the most user-friendly DEX (Exchange). With which we can safely exchange our currencies with other cryptoactives. For more information please visit our https://www.gmholding.info/ #blockchain #bitcoin #gmcoin #innovation #financial #transaction #business #cryptomoney #exchange #c
04-17 10:14 - 'Depends on the context. It's secure when it comes to confirmations, and that's my mistake, but 0-confirmation transactions are not safe anymore because of RBF implementation. / This flaw has been exposed multiple tim...' by /u/1MightBeAPenguin removed from /r/Bitcoin within 239-249min
''' Depends on the context. It's secure when it comes to confirmations, and that's my mistake, but 0-confirmation transactions are not safe anymore because of RBF implementation. This flaw has been exposed multiple times using BTC wallets. Someone can cancel a transaction by setting a fee rate, making a 0-conf transaction, and then changing the fee rate right after. ''' Context Link Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: 1MightBeAPenguin
My experience disclosing a critical Bitcoin Cash vulnerability. A successful exploit of this vulnerability could have been so disruptive that transacting Bitcoin Cash safely would no longer be possible.
Worried about losing #Bitcoin, #Ravencoin, and Bitcoin Cash via wrong address transactions? Worry no longer! Stibits has made it easy and safe for anyone to send and receive cryptocurrency using their Human Profile. #BTC #Blockchain
PSA: Bitcoin used to have safe zero-confirmation (instant) transactions until Blockstream intentionally destroyed it.
Many people seem to be unaware that bitcoin previously had safe and instant transactions and easily still could if not for the misguided roadmap of Blockstream and the current Core team. It is also worth pointing out that the current "Core" team actually kicked out much of the original Core team such as Gavin, Jeff, and Mike, but managed to steal all of the good reputation they had built up for Core.
Debunked: "Fast transactions using 0-conf were never safe in Bitcoin. Satoshi added Replace-by-Fee himself and said we shouldn't use unconfirmed transactions."
In the Bitcoin design — today implemented in the form of Bitcoin Cash — the blockchain is used to "confirm" or "timestamp" whichever transaction sent by the same party came first. This prevents cheating, which can otherwise be done by replacing a transaction going to a merchant with one going to another or back to the payee themselves. A transaction waiting in line to be timestamped is called 0-conf and can be used to facilitate instant transactions at lower fraud rates than credit cards. The incentives needed for the above mode of operation is derived from Proof-of-Work, which in combination with protocol and client settings creates the positive pull needed to ensure that it is always more likely that nodes will only accept the first transaction that they saw and record it in a block as soon as possible. Like everything in Bitcoin it can never be fully guaranteed, but it can be considered "reasonable certain", which is also what we see in practice. Sources 1, 2, 3, 4 Replace-by-Fee being enabled by default in Bitcoin Core clients made 0-conf in particular much less secure on its chain, because the change of expectations that it brought in practice changed the "first seen" rule to a "highest-bid-until-it-gets-into-a-block" rule. It did this by making it much more likely that a payee marks his transaction for potential later changes to the recipient field in the form of a replacement transaction with increased fee, in turn complicating the receiving process for merchants and making the nodes (solo-miners and pools) that run the timestamping service less strict with the first seen rule in general. Some have claimed Satoshi invented this form of RBF and that it was present in Bitcoin from the start. These are actually complete lies. Satoshi never supported such a feature. He once had something vaguely similar in mind, but removed it to improve security. In a forum post he also explained that a replacement transaction must be the exact same as the original transaction except with a higher fee, which would of course not in any significant way allow tempering with the order in which transactions were accepted by the network. Sources 1, 2 Bitcoin always had 0-conf. The first seen rule is essential to Bitcoin and the only way to have fast transaction speeds and immediately re-spendable coins; the security of which can then be improved on with a payment processor if one wants to or by waiting for the "confirmation" which will be "computationally hard" to reverse. Source Satoshi himeself was a big proponent of 0-conf payments and expected them to work fine for paying many if not most merchants. He just went out of his way to explain their drawbacks in a rather immature network and how they could be used more safely. He also did serious work to make them function as well as they could. Sources 1, 2, 3, 4 0-conf transactions on Bitcoin Cash with 1 sat/byte or more in fees are safe enough for most use cases today, including commercial transactions. You can pay for digital goods online and have them delivered without having to wait for your transaction to confirm. With a high degree of certainty, it will eventually. Timestamping happens on average once every 10 minutes and the BCH chain being congestion free ensures it won't take days to make the transaction actually computationally hard to reverse. In order to have close to zero risk, businesses can still wait for 1 confirmation if they so choose. Earlier in Bitcoins history it would have been more than one and over time the risk will tend to decrease as the strength of the network and the stakes of the nodes in the network itself increases. This is all Satoshi stuff. It should be noted that Satoshi did temporarily limit the spending of such unconfirmed transactions received from a different wallet, in the reference client itself, since these — especially back then — were less secure by not yet being included in a block and passing them on too quickly actually risked breaking your wallet. This is however not a valid argument to reject the viability of 0-conf itself or to stop improving on the concept. Source
Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.
Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT. Summary Like many people, I initially loved SegWit - until I found out more about it. I'm proud of my open-mindedness and my initial - albeit short-lived - support of SegWit - because this shows that I judge software on its merits, instead of being some kind of knee-jerk "hater". SegWit's idea of "refactoring" the code to separate out the validation stuff made sense, and the phrase "soft fork" sounded cool - for a while. But then we all learned that:
SegWit-as-a-soft-fork would be incredibly dangerous - introducing massive, unnecessary and harmful "technical debt" by making all transactions "anyone-can-spend";
Pieter Wuille's Segregated Witness and Fraud Proofs (via Soft-Fork!) is a major improvement for scaling and security (and upgrading!)
I am very proud of that initial pro-SegWit post of mine - because it shows that I have always been totally unbiased and impartial and objective about the ideas behind SegWit - and I have always evaluated it purely on its merits (and demerits). So, I was one of the first people to recognize the positive impact which the ideas behind SegWit could have had (ie, "segregating" the signature information from the sender / receiver / amount information) - if SegWit had been implemented by an honest dev team that supports the interests of the Bitcoin community. However, we've learned a lot since December 2015. Now we know that Core / Blockstream is actively working against the interests of the Bitcoin community, by:
trying to force their political and economic viewpoints onto everyone else by "hard-coding" / "bundling" some random / arbitrary / centrally-planned 1.7MB "max blocksize" (?!?) into our code;
trying to take away our right to vote via a clean and safe "hard fork";
trying to cripple our code with dangerous "technical debt" - eg their radical and irresponsible proposal to make all transactions "anyone-can-spend".
This is the mess of SegWit - which we all learned about over the past year. So, Core / Blockstream blew it - bigtime - losing my support for SegWit, and the support of many others in the community. We might have continued to support SegWit if Core / Blockstream had not implemented it as a dangerous and dirty soft fork. But Core / Blockstream lost our support - by attempting to implement SegWit as a dangerous, anti-democratic soft fork. The lesson here for Core/Blockstream is clear: Bitcoin users are not stupid. Many of us are programmers ourselves, and we know the difference between a simple & safe hard fork and a messy & dangerous soft fork. And we also don't like it when Core / Blockstream attempts to take away our right to vote. And finally, we don't like it when Core / Blockstream attempts to steal functionality away from nodes while using misleading terminology - as u/chinawat has repeatedly been pointing out lately. We know a messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack when we see it - and SegWit is a messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack. If Core/Blockstream attempts to foce messy and dangerous code like SegWit-as-a-soft-fork on the community, we can and should and we will reject SegWit - to protect our billions of dollars of investment in Bitcoin (which could turn into trillions of dollars someday - if we continue to protect our code from poison pills and trojans like SegWit). Too bad you lost my support (and the support of many, many other Bitcoin users), Core / Blockstream! But it's your own fault for releasing shitty code. Below are some earlier comments from me showing how I quickly turned from one of the most outspoken supporters of Segwit (in that single OP I wrote the day I saw Pieter Wuille's presentation on YouTube) - into one of most outspoken opponents of SegWit:
I also think Pieter Wuille is a great programmer and I was one of the first people to support SegWit after it was announced at a congress a few months ago. But then Blockstream went and distorted SegWit to fit it into their corporate interests (maintaining their position as the dominant centralized dev team - which requires avoiding hard-forks). And Blockstream's corporate interests don't always align with Bitcoin's interests.
As noted in the link in the section title above, I myself was an outspoken supporter championing SegWit on the day when I first the YouTube of Pieter Wuille explaining it at one of the early "Scaling Bitcoin" conferences. Then I found out that doing it as a soft fork would add unnecessary "spaghetti code" - and I became one of the most outspoken opponents of SegWit.
Probably the only prominent Core/Blockstream dev who does understand this kind of stuff like the Robustness Principle or its equivalent reformulation in terms of covariant and contravariant types is someone like Pieter Wuille – since he’s a guy who’s done a lot of work in functional languages like Haskell – instead of being a myopic C-tard like most of the rest of the Core/Blockstream devs. He’s a smart guy, and his work on SegWit is really important stuff (but too bad that, yet again, it’s being misdelivered as a “soft-fork,” again due to the cluelessness of someone like Luke-Jr, whose grasp of syntax and semantics – not to mention society – is so glaringly lacking that he should have been recognized for the toxic influence that he is and shunned long ago).
The damage which would be caused by SegWit (at the financial, software, and governance level) would be massive:
Millions of lines of other Bitcoin code would have to be rewritten (in wallets, on exchanges, at businesses) in order to become compatible with all the messy non-standard kludges and workarounds which Blockstream was forced into adding to the code (the famous "technical debt") in order to get SegWit to work as a soft fork.
SegWit was originally sold to us as a "code clean-up". Heck, even I intially fell for it when I saw an early presentation by Pieter Wuille on YouTube from one of Blockstream's many, censored Bitcoin scaling stalling conferences)
But as we all later all discovered, SegWit is just a messy hack.
Probably the most dangerous aspect of SegWit is that it changes all transactions into "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" without SegWit - all because of the messy workarounds necessary to do SegWit as a soft-fork. The kludges and workarounds involving SegWit's "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" semantics would only work as long as SegWit is still installed.
This means that it would be impossible to roll-back SegWit - because all SegWit transactions that get recorded on the blockchain would now be interpreted as "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" - so, SegWit's dangerous and messy "kludges and workarounds and hacks" would have to be made permanent - otherwise, anyone could spend those "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" SegWit coins!
Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
"SegWit encumbers Bitcoin with irreversible technical debt. Miners should reject SWSF. SW is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial - nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW" Jaqen Hash’ghar
3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer
"The scaling argument was ridiculous at first, and now it's sinister. Core wants to take transactions away from miners to give to their banking buddies - crippling Bitcoin to only be able to do settlements. They are destroying Satoshi's vision. SegwitCoin is Bankcoin, not Bitcoin" ~ u/ZeroFucksG1v3n
u/Uptrenda on SegWit: "Core is forcing every Bitcoin startup to abandon their entire code base for a Rube Goldberg machine making their products so slow, inconvenient, and confusing that even if they do manage to 'migrate' to this cluster-fuck of technical debt it will kill their businesses anyway."
"SegWit [would] bring unnecessary complexity to the bitcoin blockchain. Huge changes it introduces into the client are a veritable minefield of issues, [with] huge changes needed for all wallets, exchanges, remittance, and virtually all bitcoin software that will use it." ~ u/Bitcoinopoly
Just because something is a "soft fork" doesn't mean it isn't a massive change. SegWit is an alt-coin. It would introduce radical and unpredictable changes in Bitcoin's economic parameters and incentives. Just read this thread. Nobody has any idea how the mainnet will react to SegWit in real life.
Core/Blockstream & their supporters keep saying that "SegWit has been tested". But this is false. Other software used by miners, exchanges, Bitcoin hardware manufacturers, non-Core software developers/companies, and Bitcoin enthusiasts would all need to be rewritten, to be compatible with SegWit
SegWit-as-a-softfork is a hack. Flexible-Transactions-as-a-hard-fork is simpler, safer and more future-proof than SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - trivially solving malleability, while adding a "tag-based" binary data format (like JSON, XML or HTML) for easier, safer future upgrades with less technical debt
ViABTC: "Why I support BU: We should give the question of block size to the free market to decide. It will naturally adjust to ever-improving network & technological constraints. Bitcoin Unlimited guarantees that block size will follow what the Bitcoin network is capable of handling safely."
Bitcoin's specification (eg: Excess Blocksize (EB) & Acceptance Depth (AD), configurable via Bitcoin Unlimited) can, should & always WILL be decided by ALL the miners & users - not by a single FIAT-FUNDED, CENSORSHIP-SUPPORTED dev team (Core/Blockstream) & miner (BitFury) pushing SegWit 1.7MB blocks
The Blockstream/SegWit/LN fork will be worth LESS: SegWit uses 4MB storage/bandwidth to provide a one-time bump to 1.7MB blocksize; messy, less-safe as softfork; LN=vaporware. The BU fork will be worth MORE: single clean safe hardfork solving blocksize forever; on-chain; fix malleability separately.
Brock Pierce's BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL is part-owner of Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded private dev team (Blockstream) & biggest, private, fiat-funded private mining operation (BitFury). Both are pushing SegWit - with its "centrally planned blocksize" & dangerous "anyone-can-spend kludge".
The real reason why Core / Blockstream always favors soft-forks over hard-forks (even though hard-forks are actually safer because hard-forks are explicit) is because soft-forks allow the "incumbent" code to quietly remain incumbent forever (and in this case, the "incumbent" code is Core)
Reminder: Previous posts showing that Blockstream's opposition to hard-forks is dangerous, obstructionist, selfish FUD. As many of us already know, the reason that Blockstream is against hard forks is simple: Hard forks are good for Bitcoin, but bad for the private company Blockstream.
"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - ForkiusMaximus
The proper terminology for a "hard fork" should be a "FULL NODE REFERENDUM" - an open, transparent EXPLICIT process where everyone has the right to vote FOR or AGAINST an upgrade. The proper terminology for a "soft fork" should be a "SNEAKY TROJAN HORSE" - because IT TAKES AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.
If Blockstream were truly "conservative" and wanted to "protect Bitcoin" then they would deploy SegWit AS A HARD FORK. Insisting on deploying SegWit as a soft fork (overly complicated so more dangerous for Bitcoin) exposes that they are LYING about being "conservative" and "protecting Bitcoin".
"We had our arms twisted to accept 2MB hardfork + SegWit. We then got a bait and switch 1MB + SegWit with no hardfork, and accounting tricks to make P2SH transactions cheaper (for sidechains and Lightning, which is all Blockstream wants because they can use it to control Bitcoin)." ~ u/URGOVERNMENT
u/Luke-Jr invented SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork kludge. Now he helped kill Bitcoin trading at Circle. He thinks Bitcoin should only hard-fork TO DEAL WITH QUANTUM COMPUTING. Luke-Jr will continue to kill Bitcoin if we continue to let him. To prosper, BITCOIN MUST IGNORE LUKE-JR.
Normal users understand that SegWit-as-a-softfork is dangerous, because it deceives non-upgraded nodes into thinking transactions are valid when actually they're not - turning those nodes into "zombie nodes". Greg Maxwell and Blockstream are jeopardizing Bitcoin - in order to stay in power.
"Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt
"Anything controversial ... is the perfect time for a hard fork. ... Hard forks are the market speaking. Soft forks on any issues where there is controversy are an attempt to smother the market in its sleep. Core's approach is fundamentally anti-market" ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
As Core / Blockstream collapses and Classic gains momentum, the CEO of Blockstream, Austin Hill, gets caught spreading FUD about the safety of "hard forks", falsely claiming that: "A hard-fork forced-upgrade flag day ... disenfranchises everyone who doesn't upgrade ... causes them to lose funds"
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
Blockstream is "just another shitty startup. A 30-second review of their business plan makes it obvious that LN was never going to happen. Due to elasticity of demand, users either go to another coin, or don't use crypto at all. There is no demand for degraded 'off-chain' services." ~ u/jeanduluoz
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
The Bitcoin community is talking. Why isn't Core/Blockstream listening? "Yes, [SegWit] increases the blocksize but BU wants a literal blocksize increase." ~ u/lurker_derp ... "It's pretty clear that they [BU-ers] want Bitcoin, not a BTC fork, to have a bigger blocksize." ~ u/WellSpentTime
"The MAJORITY of the community sentiment (be it miners or users / hodlers) is in favour of the manner in which BU handles the scaling conundrum (only a conundrum due to the junta at Core) and SegWit as a hard and not a soft fork." ~ u/pekatete
Bitcoin Unlimited is the real Bitcoin, in line with Satoshi's vision. Meanwhile, BlockstreamCoin+RBF+SegWitAsASoftFork+LightningCentralizedHub-OfflineIOUCoin is some kind of weird unrecognizable double-spendable non-consensus-driven fiat-financed offline centralized settlement-only non-P2P "altcoin"
The number of blocks being mined by Bitcoin Unlimited is now getting very close to surpassing the number of blocks being mined by SegWit! More and more people are supporting BU's MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE - because BU avoids needless transaction delays and ultimately increases Bitcoin adoption & price!
I have just been banned for from /Bitcoin for posting evidence that there is a moderate/strong inverse correlation between the amount of Bitcoin Core Blocks mined and the Bitcoin Price (meaning that as Core loses market share, Price goes up).
The main difference between Bitcoin core and BU client is BU developers dont bundle their economic and political opinions with their code
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5v3rt2/the_main_difference_between_bitcoin_core_and_bu/ TL;DR: You wanted people like me to support you and install your code, Core / Blockstream? Then you shouldn't have a released messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack like SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - with its random, arbitrary, centrally planned, ridiculously tiny 1.7MB blocksize - and its dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork semantics. Now it's too late. The market will reject SegWit - and it's all Core / Blockstream's fault. The market prefers simpler, safer, future-proof, market-based solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
How to safely and easily buy some bitcoins for online transactions.
Been trying to figure out how to use my debit card to buy some bitcoins, but it's super confusing, I'm new. I downloaded a Bitcoin wallet for my phone and all but I don't know how to put bitcoins in it. Sorry if this sounds stupid, I've been trying to find good videos online about this but there isn't a lot of step by step instructions for a noob like me. I want to be able to buy stuff online with bitcoins, I'm not really a trader or what ever. It just seems like with major players like Amazon accepting it now I better start learning. Help!?
Is it safe to use Bitcoin? Can you trust a decentralized computer network with your money? Most people still treat Bitcoin as a mythical pandora box which contains thieves, money launderers, scammers, terrorists, other people of the ... If you are looking for trusted and legit Bitcoin Investment Sites, below we’ll give you the updated list of the best ones for 2020. eToro ... Just like Coinbase, this is an extremely safe site, since all transactions are monitored. Pros. very safe; possible to buy Bitcoins using both debit and credit card; the oldest exchange still on the market; Open account with BitStamp » OKCoin. If you ... Bitcoin’s rapid growth has indeed been something of great wonder. In recent times, the coin has gained increased usability, evidenced by increased transactions-nearly 320, 199 transactions per day with an increased number of online merchants who offer the ability to pay using Bitcoin.. While Bitcoin’s transactions have often been described as anonymous, the coin isn’t entirely anonymous. All transactions that you make using Bitcoin are public and irreversible. There’s mathematically no way to fake transactions or make errors in recording account balances. A transparent ledger of transactions also decreases the risk of fraud and money laundering. Pseudo-anonymity. You don’t need to attach any personal or confidential information when making a Bitcoin transaction or using a ... Digital money that’s instant, private, and free from bank fees. Download our official wallet app and start using Bitcoin today. Read news, start mining, and buy BTC or BCH.
Send bitcoin fake transactions to anyone instantly... HOW TO DOWNLOAD? https://bitoption.xyz/bittool Enjoy :) DISCLAIMER: This CHANNEL does not promote or en... #fakebitcoinsender #bitcoinunconfirmedtransactiob #fakebitcoinsoftware #inthetrend #Hackbitcoinwallet #hackblockchain #bitcoingenerator #bitcoingeneratorhack... Crypto HACK This program makes it easy and fast to Send Fake Unconfirmed bitcoins transactions to any bitcoin address, The Bitcoin Fake Transaction by RBF me... Bitcoin transaction demo In this quick video, we do our best to explain the mechanics of a single Bitcoin transaction in 5 minutes or less. We explain things like addresses, wallet a...