Clearly. And your idea for sticking to a relatively low number of posts per week could help, but not necessarily. It needs more than that.

I mean a company that wants exposure no matter what, will just allow lowest ranks possible that can show anything in the signature. And if a 25-30 posts/week will become overall rule, then people will have the incentive to make multiple accounts and (still) spam.

One would say that the power is in the hands of campaign managers (I thought so too at some point). But is it? Let's see... Of course that many posters start and continue completely useless discussions just to increase the post count. But the answers are not meaningful, so managers can count them as spam. Or let's say it is spam, after certain numbers (I don't know numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if cryptotalk gets more than 1000 new posts every day) they simply cannot do the best contextual check for all the posts. I've read that yahoo62278 would clean one one of such campaigns. I fear it's a way too big job for one person.
They are still humans and will not do tremendous job for free. Do the spammy campaigns pay them better? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on that.
Also not all campaign managers do the same quality of works and have the same restrictions.

So maybe we expect too much from them.

I think that the forum could have a rule on that (!). Something like a campaign cannot have more than a certain number of paid posts per day/week/month. (only check the paid, because we don't want to stop people posting if they have anything to say). This means they cannot just hire all the spammers and job done.

You should have not quoted that. Now, even if it's reported and may get deleted, the link will prevail in this thread. Twice, since you also got quoted 
I use the report link; it usually does the job.

Like in many conspiracy theories, everything is written in a shady manner.
The title tells "has revealed that her boss at the U.S. Attorney’s office asked her to look into shutting down Bitcoin"(*)
The "there’s this thing called Bitcoin and we need to investigate it"(*) part can be seen as a something normal or, if your head is conspiracy-oriented, can mean the introduction to anything bad you can imagine.
The article continues in a "conspirationistic" manner "While the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) goal may have been to shut it down"(*)

As people that understand (better or worse) Bitcoin, we know that Bitcoin cannot be "taken down" like this. Hence no crime. Still, it has all the ingredients for a conspiracy theory.
(Just as a clearer analogy: everybody who knows a tiny bit of physics understands that Earth is not flat and cannot be flat, still this doesn't stop the growing club of flat-earthers.)

I don't understand where the confusion was/is.

First of add, adding Trezor into the equation doesn't change anything, it just makes it harder to understand for the newbies. Keep in mind that a hardware wallet only keeps the private keys for signing the transactions.

So, let's go for the main problem.
From what I know, any transaction contains the receiver address (public info) and a signature (based on the private key!) of the sender address.
So it doesn't matter how many times you send money to an address, only its public info is shown. But as soon as you send out money from there, you need the private key, which can be a security risk.
About the privacy, it depends where those inputs come from, since one can link this way multiple addresses you may not want to "tell" they're all yours.

There are a lot of Bitcoin explorers, but a Bitcoin explorer will usually show the last blocks, the details of a transaction and the details/translations of an address.
What you are asking for are statistics most explorers don't show.

The Circulating Supply is shown by coinmarketcap.
I'll look a bit, maybe I find some of the other data too, but I don't promise results.

Edit: I think that the number of nodes is next to impossible to find out, since one node sees only its peers and I think that no other reporting/cross check is done, possibly even for privacy.

Since the previous recession the banks didn't recover properly (and governments rely on banks). Also around the world it was an unexpected spread of populist governments. You know, those who "help" the population promising money they have no means to collect in the first place. Of course this made people poorer and the government debts higher.

Bitcoin and crypto allowed the creation of businesses that took a good slice of banks' profit and maybe made some of them rethink (and maybe make cheaper) some services.

The banks' rules for investments and crediting became much more strict since the previous recession and their appeal for doing business seem to have lowered too.


I see now the banks like they'd have their legs tied together. They've stopped walking. And sooner or later one or more could fall (not forever!).
An interesting thing is that everybody is super cautious on talking about recession. Like if they would deny it, it would not come. But the clouds are gathering.


OP's advice is great, diversifying is the best route if one has the funds for it. Bitcoin price in fiat, the fact that Bitcoin can easily traded for fiat, is a benefit and a curse; when needed one can quickly sell Bitcoin for fiat for other needs, which in case of recession could be big.

89 - NeuroticFish

You are close! The problem is that "Chinese Exchange" can have 2 meanings.
And the fact it's owned by somebody born in China makes too many say it's a "Chinese Exchange" confuses the ones that don't know (nor care!) about the ownership and think about the laws the exchange it has to obey.

"Worldwide exchange" is not really correct either, because it has moved the operations to Malta exactly because of it lax laws, because it doesn't obey the laws of all countries.

It's up before down before up 
Weren't people telling that it has to drop? Just they didn't agree on the range (8400, 8200 or 7700).


Now let's see what surprises the week-end brings...

Sorry, I was talking about indistinguishable outputs (how I understood them), not about signing. So I don't know if you corrected me, or tried explain something better.. I'm a bit lost.



Edit: debt paid

It's the perfect conspiracy theory, because it cannot be checked. Also can make somebody rather famous. A few shows here and there, a few articles here and there and the person becomes known and may even become influencer or whatever.

Although such scenarios are possible, I would not jump into believing them right away. As said, probably Satoshi is anonymous exactly to avoid this kind of scenarios.. or worse.

I don't know luxpin.
There's this list to be checked, although it seem to be no longer maintained: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DRbTeMCzb4UeXI0YlAzBxMc2u2i0cN_17Ql6eMngK6E/edit#gid=0
Also you can check TenX (afaik they work in Asia) and AdvCash (they may have started selling outside Europe too, but I am not sure).

Multibit had 2 ways (I know of) to save this file: with encrypted private key(s) or with clear private key(s).
There are commented line starting with #, those we ignore.
The normal lines contain the private key, a space and a date.
If you have multiple lines you may have had more addresses there and you have the private keys for all, separately.

If you import private key into Electrum and it doesn't work, then it's probably encrypted and you'll have to remember the password; in that case you should install Multibit (Classic), import the .key file, then export the key file without password. (on a safe computer!). Then import the keys into Electrum, see that you have the funds. Then create in Electrum a proper new wallet with seed. And transfer (all) the old coins onto a new address of yours. And keep the seed safe.

I don't advise you send the coins from Multibit directly because it's buggy.

Edit: 3rdinvestmentwallet.key may be Bitcoin (Multibit) or may be Dogecoin (Multidoge); does this ring a bell maybe?

I use Bitstamp's app. It doesn't even have all the options you have on the web page (eg you cannot withdraw), but it's handy.
It moves fast, I don't have to copy-paste from phone to phone the 2FA (which is a super silly thing to do imho), and it comes handy if there's a sudden spike or drop and want to benefit and I'm not at home.

There are not too many apps. Nobody forces you use them if you don't want to.

I've also read that if implemented, this will help in fungibility. This means that Bitcoin will be closer to the way paper money behaves: if you have 200$, 100$ from a drug dealer and 100$ from a bank, no one will know which 100$ came from which source.
It can improve the anonymity by a great deal. I also don't know how much will the exchanges and financial regulators (dis)like this (isn't Monero out of the major exchanges in Japan?).

I also don't know much about the other benefits, it can help the multisig, but I don't know how much and some simple explanation for start could help.
I'll also add a link I've found, but didn't read it all yet, since it contains too many references to things I don't know yet https://medium.com/digitalassetresearch/schnorr-signatures-the-inevitability-of-privacy-in-bitcoin-b2f45a1f7287

Yes, they do! They combine best the taste and the strength.


Yes, please move it into glass bottle as soon as you can. If kept too long in plastic, the spirits can get some (bad) taste from it.


Actually there's a good chance they're both palinca, although I expect the one from Zalau be stronger.
At least on the website Emil Florescu tells that he makes palinca, stating clearly that it's double-distilled.


Edit: PS. Those from my image were glass bottles. Recycled indeed, but certainly glass.

Imho, OP had a good idea, but with not so good execution.
1. These rules apply to anyone, no matter they're in a signature campaign or would like to join one sometime in the future. And that's because post history (and good habits too) do matter.
2. It's a very long post. Luckily it's well structured and the main ideas are written with bold, but (too) many people around here just skip the long posts.

And as already written by the others, the greedier posters won't read, no matter how you do it, because all they care is to post.

As @OmegaStarScream wrote, it's not worth it, at least financially. At 65$ you can already buy a hardware wallet.
Of course, I cannot argue about people's hobbies 

It's a decision solely to boost the sales. The miners (too) expect Bitcoin to rise and it can look like a good business to buy for fiat and not for Bitcoin (although at the end they're both money).
And for some (see "no interest") it may indeed be a good business

Wow @ 1050th

All exchanges are abundant in trade bots, fake sell/buy walls and all the "tools" that give them an edge. It's clearly not only Binance or Bitfinex, and I don't think that it's only the in-house bots there.
However, I don't think that there's any legislation they break (edit: and this is quite a shame) and you don't seem to have clear proof for market manipulation. And that means that you have nothing, really.