What is the downside of having a default setting in which nodes will invalidate blocks that comprise a surprise reorg?

Suppose that suddenly, out of nowhere, a longest-chain appears that reorgs the last 15 blocks. Such an attack could be accomplished from time-to-time even by a minority attacker who is either lucky or pays heavily for extra temporary hashrate. Depending on how clever the attacker is, this can be quite lucrative. It’s feasible, especially if Coinbase or Binance was victimized, that an unofficial edict could go out use invalidateblock. After a short period of moderate confusion, nodes would have agreed to reject this fork, temporarily suspending Nakamoto Consensus, and Bitcoin would proceed as before, and the attacker, who spent perhaps millions of dollars executing this attack, would be chastised and impoverished, chilling the ambitions of other attackers who would attempt a similar caper.

My questions: why would we think that such a community reorg wouldn’t happen? Second, why not just have this coded into the software? If a node suddenly sees a new block appear at height 10 below the latest height the node has seen, this gets automatically invalidated. What goes wrong?

Not sure how I see my bitcoin balance

Ok so in 2018 I purchased $1500 worth of bitcoin through Coinspot and transferred most of it – well the keys to it of course – onto a Ledger. Since then Bitcoin has moved up a decent amount so I know the $1200 still sitting on Coinspot reflects the Bitcoin I left there.

I haven’t touched or moved anything since then but want to see what the value is of my bitcoin that I moved to offline.

I know the ledger doesn’t actually contains coins and all that stuff, I’d just like a simple method to see how much bitcoin I own right now.

I’m probably missing something very obvious but would appreciate some help.

Creating HD wallet using Blockcypher

I’m using Blockcypher to create an HD wallet, which requires me to send extended_public_key.

How do I create the extended keys?
While generating a new address using the API I’m getting something like:

{
  "private": "696785dc619c5f493ba72aa1ded581771ac7360fcf49903a0dc96a381d460182",
  "public": "03d6ff03e21b81a7f5c7e678130845a94ba1ca15316bc0d9635c8cc3e51aa26a8a",
  "address": "bc1q446jd78q2nmpxt25puv7h8lwcwsw9dmkgf5sgp",
  "wif": "KzkbwXy4PS8mEAnZZC5LcVnhe64LCWaqUfsc4Fuj1AKak4qgBPcJ"
}

How can I use this data to create extended private and public keys?

Should I use a different method to generate the extended keys?

Setup Trezor with Electrum. Created a receiving address. Executed from my online wallet. Timed out and disconnected Trezor. Now what?

I setup Trezor 1 (not Model T) with Electrum, then created a receiving address in Electrum (not Trezor’s wallet). I then sent transfer from Paxos account to this address. However, Paxos triggered some confirmation of transaction, and Trezor+Electrum had a 5 min time out. I had to disconnect Trezor and fire Electrum back up. I don’t see transaction history in Electrum or the receiving address referenced anywhere. Now what?

problem sending relative locktime (OP_CSV) transaction

i tried making a relative timelocked transaction with 1 block timelock (spendable after 1 confirmation)

funding tx:
0fda5412da2a2615361914fad007aac73154746108d44c04529e78f6c4424655

address: tb1qkrz7wne7p05fkgpzk8w9w8pzqswp85zcwcckr4s2z02qr03ksp6qmfduak

script:

$ bitcoin-cli -testnet decodescript 21020a14f343fa6b145921de84ff593e16007dcceba46550e2175e86cc14a8cf40cbad51b2
{
  "asm": "020a14f343fa6b145921de84ff593e16007dcceba46550e2175e86cc14a8cf40cb OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY 1 OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY",
  "type": "nonstandard",
  "p2sh": "2NFQbJj3QRhDXEa1TVoA92q5Ssygv7i4kK3",
  "segwit": {
    "asm": "0 b0c5e74f3e0be89b2022b1dc571c22041c13d058763161d60a13d401be368074",
    "hex": "0020b0c5e74f3e0be89b2022b1dc571c22041c13d058763161d60a13d401be368074",
    "address": "tb1qkrz7wne7p05fkgpzk8w9w8pzqswp85zcwcckr4s2z02qr03ksp6qmfduak",
    "type": "witness_v0_scripthash",
    "p2sh-segwit": "2N8xFW1ta5EhgMtsqRx32DCGwbUrey4rwvN"
  }
}

spending tx but it gives an error

01000000000101554642c4f6789e52044cd40861745431c7aa07d0fa14193615262ada1254da0f0000000000010000000179030000000000001600140aa46507f4b5c291f40224a8cb62cca18222d56d0247304402203216b9f5518ae00a8d8d16bf7c73376cc77c1f81bece6c3f4daac7f906e7030102201961be0b1464d3637e566765a37da6885e94b91155dbba4373d269840b4125f4012521020a14f343fa6b145921de84ff593e16007dcceba46550e2175e86cc14a8cf40cbad51b200000000

my first try also failed with the same error, it was a relative locktime of 5 blocks

address: tb1qmsws55wqcg6glcrk9urnjqfw0mpqp6uralha5y99wf8pvnh3sqjs8cm92l

script:

$ bitcoin-cli -testnet decodescript 21020a14f343fa6b145921de84ff593e16007dcceba46550e2175e86cc14a8cf40cbad55b2
{
  "asm": "020a14f343fa6b145921de84ff593e16007dcceba46550e2175e86cc14a8cf40cb OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY 5 OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY",
  "type": "nonstandard",
  "p2sh": "2MuimPJ2k6SArD9aCchJDdWbVHeyR2cBoUo",
  "segwit": {
    "asm": "0 dc1d0a51c0c2348fe0762f0739012e7ec200eb83efefda10a5724e164ef18025",
    "hex": "0020dc1d0a51c0c2348fe0762f0739012e7ec200eb83efefda10a5724e164ef18025",
    "address": "tb1qmsws55wqcg6glcrk9urnjqfw0mpqp6uralha5y99wf8pvnh3sqjs8cm92l",
    "type": "witness_v0_scripthash",
    "p2sh-segwit": "2N1iz6k1KgHRsYNWT64HF2fcCQduJ22DYfH"
  }
}

tx:

0100000000010171ea228f6f77c4a4fc427ca35cb09889d61673671d7321c07a2ceb5b653d62d90000000000010000000179030000000000001600140aa46507f4b5c291f40224a8cb62cca18222d56d02483045022100f33f68f8b67ab722ea82a125287bfd3d9cfd920df8a41d6286790e4fe65afe770220780cbc8b3b8d44fcc08237e7133c86d1a73b2d55cd3dadc0d850416fdd7e0164012521020a14f343fa6b145921de84ff593e16007dcceba46550e2175e86cc14a8cf40cbad55b200000000

error:

(-26)  non-mandatory-script-verify-flag (Locktime requirement not satisfied)

BTCPay Server with lightening over testnet – Payment issue

I have recently deployed btcpayserver over testnet to demonstrate the user experience to my colleagues.

Lightening Implementation: LND

Following are setting
Node Type: Internal

Every thing seems ok I can see the service status also comes as online moreover this node is now visible in https://1ml.com/testnet

I tried nc -v server:port as well that also working. So connection is not an issue apparently.

However while testing payments I tried two wallets and but failed to make a payment.
first I tried Lightning: Testnet Wallet but fails with "invalid invoice or address".
then I tried Eclair Mobile Testnet it reads the invoice and initiates the transaction but fails after a while. see the result below;

then I tried open channel directly to my node but it scanned it shown a form with pubkey and host details however upon proceeding with full funding it fails with error message "Failed to open channel:incompatible features"

Can someone please help me to understand where I am doing wrong. I am not able to find any further wallets supporting testnet+lightening Also most of the BTCPayServer tutorial videos are using mainnet.

Wallet 1 error
enter image description here

Wallet 2 error
enter image description here

Have you Lost Bitcoin?

HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MONEY TO BITCOIN/BINARY OPTION SCAM OR ANY ONLINE SCAM WHATSOEVER?.DO YOUR DESIRE CREDIT REPAIR[EQUIFAX, EXPERIAN, TRANSUNION? WELL, YOU HAVE FOUND REDEMPTION IN H A C K I N G P R O F E S S I O N A L 3 a t G m A i L d o t C O M.