[...] Dear crew mate. Forgive me for completely ignoring this. BlackHatCoiner: The Magician. BlackHatCoiner was a joker at the old palace. He was always against the King and was willing to help the Queen to dethrone him. "No Gods or Kings. Only Bitcoin foxes". BTW, you reminded me of Game of Thrones! I hope we don't share the same ending, though. (And I was thinking which series I should re-watch, now I know)At first, he wanted to be good with everyone, but as time passed, he knew that some foxes would be a pain. Therefore, he decided to expose their lack of Bitcoin knowledge publicly Hmm. Interesting. What gave you this impression about me? I don't feel like I've been that kind of guy. Prepare for celebratory shenanigans.
Shall we prepare ourselves for some flawless timings?  |
|
|
|
|
Because Bitcoin is complex, and complex projects are better to be programmed in object oriented programming. It also comes with rich libraries like STL, which reduce the overall chance for making a mistake, and it improves performance.
C is (usually) faster than C++, but I wouldn't want Bitcoin's source code to be a monster like the Linux kernel, even if it was slightly faster (which isn't necessarily to be the case).
|
|
|
|
The people making the outrageous claim are the ones who have the burden of proof. If I argue that I have a billion dollars, so I can issue a billion BlackHatCoins, each pegged with a dollar, then the burden of proof lies on me. It is me who claims a positive, and needs to provide proof of reserves, not you to disprove that I don't have any; how could you ever accomplish such a thing in the first place? Thinking Tether is fake was sooooo 2017 haha. I actually can't believe people are still harping on about that lol
It is not that I believe they have absolutely nothing in reserve; not having enough reserves is shady enough for me. In this post, it is demonstrated that Tether were capable to only provide evidence of just 14% of their "reserves". You can read more about it, and see yourself that USDT is not 1-of-1 backed by USD and they're essentially one big fractional reserve business. In fact, I can't believe it's 2024 and people still put trust in stablecoins after all the incidents of stable coins and supposedly "legit" and "reputable" CEXes collapsing one after the other. |
|
|
|
They're not supposed to have value, but the cost to mine testnet is real. So, if the utility does not outweigh the cost, simply don't mine it. Leave it to be mined by people who want to test. Mining a worthless coin with the hope of selling it for a price makes no sense. If no block has been found in 20 minutes, then the difficulty resets back to minimum, so cost is ~0. The last reset was 10 years ago... I'll believe it when I see it. The last reset was 10 years ago, because it's worked fine by now. If we start setting up "testnet marketplaces", I'm sure people will either abandon testnet and go to signet, or just create testnet 4. |
|
|
|
Does this mean that you can also create unsigned transactions with the GUI client? You certainly can, but you'll probably have to use the console, unless there exists a GUI setting I'm unaware of. However, if the wallet is watch-only, you can copy the PSBT to clipboard according to this SE post: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/99112/134811. Maybe making a separate transaction for each utxo to a new bc1 address in the new wallet to have relatively easy-to-read transactions. What's the problem with doing what nc50lc says? You're risking losing more money in fees. If you set the transfer amount slightly below the balance of the utxo, then that is automatically the fee right? Right. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Testnet reward is 0.02 coins every 20 minutes. If someone wants 1000 coins they are going to be using a fair bit of electricity and time. A better question is: why would one want 1000 tBTC? What do they have to offer that 0.01 tBTC cannot offer? I own this exchange and I decided to offer this market. People are lining up on both sides. I don't think that makes me or the users dishonest. Everyone is happy that uses it. You're just speeding up the testnet reset. The more people treat it as currency, the less purpose it has. You should at least display that these units are worthless and can be reset at any time. The only people upset are the ones who want to wave a magic wand and say "This has no value!!!!" Which is exactly what people have done with Bitcoin!!! You don't understand that mainnet and testnet are apples and oranges. Testnet coins must not have value. It is not open for debate. |
|
|
|
Also, Tether recently released about a billion dollar USDT and afterwards we saw the price of BTC surge above its previous price of 62k to 63 and currently 65k plus. This might have just been a coincidence, though. Which other evidence suggests newly minted USDT drives the Bitcoin price up? I personally see no connection between Tether's money supply and Bitcoin's demand. People always claim when new USDT is created it means they just created it out of thin air lol. Can you prove it otherwise? If Tether does not provide proof of reserve of all these billions of dollars, then what is their money supply apart from thin air? |
|
|
|
Even in the aforementioned thread there's responses from over a week ago that came out as AI generated text with 98% certainty, and the mods still did not remove it. I think mods are in a quite difficult situation when they evaluate AI reports. First things first, there is no rule which prohibits the use of AI. So, reporting it and using "AI" as excuse, does not satisfy the conditions for deletion. Only if the post is completely meaningless, it'd be removed, but that's because being "completely meaningless" is against the rules. So, if someone used accurate AI responses, I'm not entirely sure what a mod should do. Should there be more mobilization of users in that regard? Perhaps start giving neg trust to those abusing AI to make posts... Or we just don't care about it anymore?
If it's totally apparent, then yes. Any account which is essentially run by a chatbot, presented as a human, cannot be trusted. |
|
|
|
Some like hardware wallets some like cold wallets held in offline laptop. Look. Cold / Airgapped storage is generally more secure, if you know what you're doing. The whole premise lies on the fact that the private keys never "touch" an Internet connected device, so they can only be compromised physically. Hardware wallets on the other hand, while are separate concept than a usual "hot wallet", are not airgapped, because you're connecting them to your Internet connected computer. Theoretically, if a security vulnerability is discovered, the attacker might be able to compromise the private keys of your hardware wallet. This is impossible in an airgapped device, because it is simply physically impossible to send keys over any communication channels. If I were you, I'd buy myself an airgapped device instead of a hardware wallet. Either Foundation Passport or SeedSigner. It is an opportunity to educate yourself about the Bitcoin space as well. |
|
|
|
The only problem with Bitcoin as a payment system is that fee is quiet high compared to the traditional payment system which is fiat I wouldn't say that the transaction fee is the big problem per se. People generally don't want to rely on a property that is so volatile. They would rather use a currency that is devaluating (but in a slow and constant rate), than bet their operations in a currency that has no representatives to guarantee stability. Only if the fiat currencies completely collapse, similarly as to Zimbabwean dollars, then they'll switch to cryptocurrencies. |
|
|
|
It feels so good to be just almost at new ATH again...! Feels like redemption, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
|
Am I reading right? Sixty seven thousand dollars?
|
|
|
|
It loads fine from my side: (Tor Browser 13.0.10) It is fine from Firefox 123.0 as well. |
|
|
|
I am not as apprised how every institution handles crypto, although I know PayPal allows you to buy crypto, and are a mainstream financial player. I have never used it, but I know that it does not work like exchanges do. You cannot withdraw it to your wallet, and I don't think PayPal has proof of reserves, so I don't know even if these coins exist in the first place and aren't some sort of IOU. is there some way we can tell how much has been moved to the ETF? Sorry, I have no damn clue. Again, I agree with today's brokerages (as far as I know, and with the above caveat about PayPal), but the ETF changes this conversation entirely. Indeed. And that's because it introduces some regulatory convenience. Let's see how this goes. Still, though. Someone has to safeguard bitcoin, which is not really different from a crypto exchange. The only difference is that there is more regulatory ground to base it. If an anonymous hacker compromises the infrastructure, I wonder what will happen to investors' money. And as a side note, while you are probably right about the state of the pure crypto brokers right now, I would have to think, with tens of billions of dollar in prize money waiting for them, that some companies with trusted brand names will step up and solve the problem I don't think that the solution is "reputation". The problem comes from the fact that knowledge of a private key can alter ownership, which is fundamentally different than the traditional model where there are lots of documents and procedures involved to change the ownership of a car, house etc. Attempting to falsely alter the ownership of a property can also result in imprisonment, which discourages thieves further. However, even if regulations become more strict, and crypto firms must be held accounted for financial losses, and / or maybe even if the state compensates them, the problem still remains. Ownership changes with the knowledge of a number, anonymously, with no disincentive for imprisonment. |
|
|
|
Most people are probably not aware that the above items--and much, much more--are done every day by reputable large financial institutions, who follow standards like 27001 compliance and lots of other standards and practices. Employees of those institutions are background checked, fingerprinted, and so on. For the second time, there exist no such institutions in cryptocurrencies. The investor has to choose to either do this themselves by taking responsibility of the security of their coins, or trust a stranger that does not follow the aforementioned standards (like 27001 compliance). Or just not invest into cryptocurrencies. Again, your average consumer does not want to engage in trade craft just to hold on to their savings. Most people don't do this for a living, they do other things. I thought we were talking about serious investors, who will buy large quantities, i.e. Michael Saylor. Not "average consumers". Find me the last time a major US financial institution like Citibank lost their customers bank accounts. Again, bad analogy! And "airgapped" won't help you if a thief breaks into your house, takes your airgapped device, and then uses a form of cryptanalysis that has thus far never failed to break even the strongest encryption. That's why we have multi-sig. To guard funds under divided possession. The investor could save two keys in his house, another two in his companies and/or into the bank's vaults. They could then decide how many keys are required, from the total, to spend coins from the wallet. Depending on that configuration, a thief will have to break into both their house, the bank and/or their company simultaneously! The existence (and fails) of companies like Binance and the others who have lost customer data speaks, I think, to the fact that crypto investing is basically brand new. I disagree. The reason why they cannot be trusted with your coins is that they promise to safeguard something that is outside their control. If a thief compromises your bank's account, you just report it to the police and to the bank accordingly. Depending on the time it takes you to realize it, you will likely not experience losses, and might even have their potential transactions reversed. If a thief breaks into your Binance's account and makes a withdrawal, you're finished. The Binance can't help you, the police can't help you etc. That's the fundamental difference between debit money and hard cash. |
|
|
|
Sadly, you are destroying me in the posts/activity to merit ratio. And you're destroying me in the date of registration!  |
|
|
|
the idea that most large investors would physically hold their investment on their iPhone is rather ridiculous to me I never said that they should hold their private keys in an iPhone, but in a properly airgapped device, by backing up their seed phrase in some strong material like washers, or in paper inside a locker. You should never hold private keys of significant value in an Internet connected computer. Shall I google all of the stories about people who have physically lost their private keys? Go on. Find me incidents of people who used reputable, open-source software in airgapped devices, like Passport or SeedSigner and got ripped off. Or beyond these. Find me incidents of people who simply got ripped off by holding their keys in an airgapped environment. There's obviously no perfect solution, and everybody can make their own decision about this, but the existence of large banks and brokers in the civilized world that hold most consumer wealth tells me that most people want to trust somebody else to guard their major wealth, not do it themselves. I agree, but what I'm trying to tell you is that there is no regulatory framework for centralized exchanges, so it is a bad analogy. You're practically handing over your coins to a stranger with no compensation, trusting nothing but their word. In a civilized world, you do not only have the bank's and broker's word to rely on. |
|
|
|
I didnt realise laptop 2 still decrypted the wallet.dat even though it was signed and attempted to be broadcast on the offline laptop 1 previously. If you simply sign the transaction from the offline laptop, and transfer the signed transaction to the online laptop, there is no problem. If, however, you transfer the wallet.dat in the online laptop, and sign the transaction in the online laptop, you'll be asked the wallet's password needed to decrypt it. At that point, you'd risk having your wallet compromised. If you transfer the encrypted wallet in the online laptop and you don't decrypt it, then, given that you've entered a very strong password, it does not introduces the same risk, no. The question is: why would you ever want to do that, though? Signing takes place in the offline computer. The wallet file has no other purpose than signing. |
|
|
|
Can you back these claims up? An investor who puts millions into FTX, Voyager or Celsius (as recent examples of collapsed crypto firms) isn't a serious one.
No, those investors didn't do their research into those companies and/or were swindled by criminals. But nobody serious puts giant portions of their large portfolio in the top drawer or their desk. They rely on an institution that has (or says they have) multiple layers of security and processes e.g. like a bank). So, you can't back these claims up. Every single one? Really? Not " every single one", that's why I said "almost". Here's a documented timeline of hacked exchanges: https://chainsec.io/exchange-hacks/. Note that this isn't "complete", as it says. It misses important incidents like Binance getting hit by $570M hack. Here's another list of bankrupt crypto exchanges: https://www.hedgewithcrypto.com/crypto-bankruptcies/. What matters to me, is that these were someday referred to as "secure" and "safer than guarding your private keys", whereas they were huge targets for hackers and lacked the regulatory framework to compensate the customers' funds instead. I expect from a serious investor to see the big picture here, and choose to be responsible for their own wealth instead of the former. Correct. That is all possible because you put those assets in your own name and didn't purchase them anonymously. Am I noticing a contradiction here? If you buy a house and don't report it to the government, somebody can come steal your house and you will have no recourse. It is simply possible because Bitcoin works outside the government's supervision. It doesn't matter the slightest whether you report your Bitcoin holdings or not. If a thief compromises your keys, you cannot resort to any institution. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
