You can also put it like that, yes. Officially they simply didn't protect them, allowing the spell checker send them to whoever wanted to "help" with them 

From what I've read here, reinstalling Visual Studio 2015 redistributable could fix this. Direct link for VS2015 Redist: https://www.microsoft.com/en-in/download/details.aspx?id=48145

Let aside crypto promotion, which central banks don't want to do, central bank cryptocurrencies are not pointless.
They would offer an alternative - a more trusted one if implemented correctly - to all the known stable coins, existing (USDT, GUSD, ..)  or not (LIBRA).

I also vote for Dogecoin, Litecoin and Waves.
Although correctly said, there are other better suited coins for fast and low fee / 0-fee transactions, some still use Dogecoin just because almost all exchanges list it.
Litecoin (and sometimes Dogecoin) may still be used by some exchanges as the basis for exchange (instead of Bitcoin) for very small value coins, having LTC-WhateverCoin and no BTC-WhateverCoin.
Waves is a very easy and cheap platform for tokens and has a working DEX (and other features too). Although it's drowning under the huge number of useless tokens, it has its utility imho.


OP, maybe at some point you'll adapt the initial post and enhance the list?

Exactly. Under certain amount of money, web wallets are "okay". If they "steal" your money, in a way or another, it's no biggie.
And under certain amounts people are also careless with their wallets, no matter how good the software is. And under certain amounts it's not worth it to buy hardware wallet.
The fake "Electrum 4.0" has proven all this much better than we'd like to admit.

Although selling crypto miners is (expected to be) a good business, I'm not sure what they would do with the IPO money.. expand their production in US to avoid tariffs?! But then the production will also get (much) more expensive.
So I am not sure who will be the ones who would benefit more - the investors or the companies? I guess that's the companies.
So it's not really a gold rush.

You should look more actively, if you are indeed interested.
One very good thread to start with would be https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4528038.0

Yup. That's why I suggested OP to allow 0-conf to certain (custodian) wallets which don't allow users do rbf at all.


The previous number of minutes between blocks doesn't necessarily give a hint for the number of minutes until the next block, so it's not risk free. It may reduce the risk (debatable), but doesn't make it risk free.

Nowadays most use Bitcoin as an investment, not only as a store of value. But after some more halvings and after Bitcoin is mature and widely adopted, the value may become rather stable and using it as investment may not bring such high reward.
And Bitcoin primary meaning is to be used as a coin. The store of value is a "secondary effect" of all good/successful coins (back in the days when inflation was big I kept my savings in USD/EUR!).
That's why the development goes in the direction to make the use of Bitcoin-as-a-coin go faster and better.

So I expect Bitcoin get used in 2130 as a coin much more than today.
I don't know how much of the transactions will be off-chain and how much on-chain, but we clearly have to keep miners happy even then (the problems will start much earlier than 2130 actually).


As said by @Deathwing, the network will continue to work even then, just at a lower difficulty, if the miners leave. But if the difficulty drops too much, at some point the network could become vulnerable to 51% attack. So ... we have to find long term solutions to keep the miners happy.

Freedom of speech is a great deal and whether some like it or not, it's great that we have it here too.
This forum is more and more a view over our society, with good and bad, with people that share our views or not, with people which want to help, to scam or to troll (and so on). It's out choice what we read or skip, what we answer to or not.

In my country (Romania) such limit exists for some years now. Just iirc it's about 10000 EUR / cash transaction, so 45000 RM.
And I can tell that I know only 2 cases average Joe faces these limits: when selling/buying a home (house, apartment) or a (new) car, which operations usually happen through bank / credit anyway.
So I think that it's not a real / big problem.

The idea looks good to me. I mean, the questions and answers don't have to be centralized on 2-3 websites. The more the merrier.
Some bugs/improvements/ideas though:

1. You break the browsing history. If I press back after opening a question/thread, I go to main page instead of the list of questions.
2. You need a better UI for displaying the "short view" and the "full view". Also I agree with @pooya87, that text-box looking part invites you edit instead of reading
3. It could be useful to have a way to get the link to one of the questions without opening it. You'll also need to offer direct link to each answer.
4. I think that the main page should already show the newest questions, else some may think that they have to create an user in order to see them. That "let's go" link may not be enough (and also may not be visible enough).

OK, so instead of having a chain of blocks you propose "replacing" one "current state" object.
But sync doesn't happen for everybody in the same time. That's why the mined blocks in a shorter fork will become orphaned.
Yes, I know, you wrote that the best "state" is the one saved with the highest difficulty, but this wold mean that you force the network difficulty increase continuously, which will not happen always, it just cannot happen - the new "states" will be mined slower and slower until the process will stop (that's why Bitcoin has difficulty adjustment).
I think that this is one of the flaws of your logic for now.

Is this a sad attempt for FUD?
If Bitcoin reaches 100k, people will be happy with the easy money they've got and will be more willing to spend/invest in altcoins.
And some (very few!) altcoins deserve such a chance.

As said in other threads, only some 6.2% of Americans own crypto. Such a big business as Disney don't care about crypto. If they add such payments, they'll do it through a payment processor and they'll actually receive US dollars.

I don't think that crypto would make their service "explode", but could give them a slight edge. From what I've read their service is cheaper than Netflix and that's more important for most possible customers (together with the content, obviously).


On another hand I don't know if I can install any Disney+ app on my TV (while Netflix and HBO go are there)....

"Not your keys, not your coins". Unless you (installed a software and) made a wallet and received a private key (or a wallet file) I'd stop dreaming. Most probably that site doesn't exist anymore or has change and would not allow you withdraw.

You need to ask more clearly what you want. This is a forum, it doesn't hold money so there's nothing to withdraw.
Depending on the wallet you use and the coins in it, you may or may not be able to exchange into fiat and withdraw.

Afaik you cannot withdraw fiat (dollars) from Binance, so you may have to do the operation in 2 steps: convert the tokens into Bitcoin, Ethereum, whatever known coin then go to something like Bitstamp or Coinbase pro and transform to fiat you can withdraw.
I don't know if you'll find one place where you can exchange all those tokens, I would try to find the relevant exchanges for each token on worldcoinindex.com, coinmarketcap.com or coingecko.com
I don't have experience with Ethereum tokens, there may be a DEX or anything where you can exchange them all.

It's an awfully lot of money there. If you are not trolling, then you better wait for more answers and do some more research yourself.


PS. If you acquired yourself those tokens or at least that amount of ETH you should know already something. So the chances you are trolling are pretty high.

And they will just lose money, because many will avoid projects advertised by red-trust users, thinking "if they allow scammers for advertising, what if they are also scammers?"

Woah, nu e tocmai o reactie la care m-as fi asteptat, e o surpriza placuta. Sunt curios daca e ceva izolat sau chiar vor fi multe asemenea cazuri.


Mda, iar noi trebuie sa le explicam. Si e simplu. Clar si democratic, cu cat mai multi voteaza cu atat mai corect este rezultatul. Plus ca pana la un anumit numar de votanti este avantajat unul dintre candidati, iar de la o valoare in sus, celalalt, cel putin "pe hartie".
Cum spuneam, trebuie votanti cat mai multi cel putin pentru corectitudine: pentru a avea un castigator care totusi reprezinta un procent semnificativ din populatie, nu doar din votanti (!).