1. Centralization Concerns: SegWit allows for the creation of off-chain transactions that do not need to be recorded on the Bitcoin blockchain, which some critics argue could lead to a centralization of power among large Bitcoin exchanges or custodians who control these off-chain transactions.

Liquid Network Disadvantages

While the Liquid Network has numerous advantages, it's also important to discuss its drawbacks.

--snip--

That is still a rough estimate, maybe next if I have the funds I will make an accurate in how much cost and watts I need. while I know once charging laptop is need 60 – 180 watts.

Bitcoin.org already warns users that Wasabi relies on a centralized service by default, https://bitcoin.org/en/wallets/desktop/windows/wasabi/?step=5&platform=windows&user=experienced&important=privacy&features=bech32

Isn't that enough?

I recommend you to use either Lubuntu or Linux Mint for the purpose because both of the operating systems are based on Ubuntu, however, they are much lighter in weight than Ubuntu. The Lubuntu is the fastest and lightest Linux distro, and it is pretty less resource hungry by nature. You can also try Ubuntu MATE as that one is also good choice for running Bitcoin core.

Yes, but with a caveat.

Coinbase has always been known to intentionally mark and restrict transactions associated with gambling sites, illicit marketplace and anything in that category. They also openly deduce and blacklist CoinJoin transactions which Wasabi is able to do. If you use CoinJoin, you can potentially run the risk of that happening. You can have plausible deniability if you use another wallet before that and argue that the CoinJoin isn't related to you.

Thanks! I've read through the BIP and it seems to be indeed what I'm looking for (so I put the BIP in the thread title as maybe it attracts someone who knows lesser known implementations). As Wasabi seems to be open source, maybe the relevant part can be "ported" into completely open/decentralized solutions like Electrum ...

@pooya87: Thank you; yes I've only recently looked in that file and I think I understand the way net_processing.cpp works approximately even not being fluent in C++. I still hope to not have to code that thing myself, but it seems I have to (or at least parts), so its possible I've to implement your idea

Sparrow does have an advantage for new users in this regard.  Electrum needs a tor node running in the background to connect through tor, it doesn't have a built-in process to create one.  If the tor option is selected in Sparrow, it'll look for a background tor node but if it doesn't find one it'll start it's own, similar to how Bisq and Tor Browser work.

I've only ever paired Sparrow with a node running on the same device, but in this set up anything I've done on Sparrow has been pretty much instant. The only downside is of course if you import a wallet with historical transactions in to Sparrow then you have to rescan, just as if you imported a wallet with historical transactions in to Core. This is obviously not the case if you were running a full Electrum server, but of course Sparrow can connect to those too.

You can run Bitcoin Core on macOS by itself, but indeed, Apple doesn't make any servers, so the only way it makes sense to leave a node running on a mac 24/7 is if it's a desktop.

That's OK for me. I don't mind liveOS (not persistent) as databases could be stored persistently on an attached SDD independently.

Whicj oparating system distribution for hosting a Bitcoin Core node do you recommend (e.g. Debian GNU/Linux, Tails, NixOS, MacOS)?

I find creating wallet convenient, and it doesn't require any information to create one. Please don't blast saving of mnemonic and similar is hard thing to do.

Why would you not like it being automated? Although, I also think it's unnecessary for bitcointalk but still.

Maybe worth pointing out that Wasabi now apparently automatically starts coinjoining everything, charging you a fee to be spied on, whether you want it to or not: https://nitter.net/DiracDel/status/1672294717193859074

The creators thought of how things should be done isn't ideal , that's nice . As for the arguments of the post you shared , these are complete BS . Initial blocksize was 32 MB and there was a reason at the time that 1MB was imposed .  

No, that was before my Bitcoin journey, but I could already tell that IP to IP transactions are open to attacks like IP-Spoofing and MOTM. It's probably better to leave that decision to the Core Developers.

Wasn't Mike Hearn the developer who spread FUD about Bitcoin's collapse if it didn't hard fork to bigger blocks?

Yeah, tried to dual boot before , I allocated the larger partition to windows because we all know how heavy that os will be and how many drivers and such are needed in that unlike in linux , it is lightweight and many distro and flavor. Already tried using Ubuntu since most of my friend said that ubuntu is good for beginner like me and then I got interested in Kali because I got interested in cybersec . I also tried Arch Linux but I failed to installed it I don't know why. Currently using Linux mint as well for crypto , but most of the time I used mac now because of work. So for me in terms of security of assets better to use linux, it is kinda hard to use at first when you are not yet so techy you might got a problem in your hardware as well if you failed to partition it correctly.

You can probably quickly learn how to use LinuxOS, the real question is if it's really worth it. First of all you need a new laptop or PC only for Linux, which creates more work as you need to keep the second system up to date.

Why not just buy a good anti-virus system for windows? We can increase our security on windows and don't need to worry so much anymore about a virus or a scam attack.

That's a good point, and that is just the software level, this is going to be a combination of both software and hardware, Intel tried to make mining chips and sold them to mostly western companies (U.K, U.S, and Canadain based) such as Hive Blockchain Technologies, and ARGO, it's evident that all of them failed in competing with the Chinese giants, and intel had to stop it's mining chips production.

Finally we get a statement[1] from Atomic Wallet after 18 days of radio silence regarding what might have caused the draining of the wallets. Here's a few highlights from it:
--snip--

Atomic is essentially a software application to manage users' crypto on local devices. We don't ask for any personal information, nor do we store user accounts, etc. Atomic, as a company, has no custody; developers have never had access to users' funds.

4. Categories of Collected Personal Data

We collect the following categories of your Personal Data:

--snip--

– Device Information. We may collect information about the device you use to access our Application, including the hardware model, operating system and version, unique device identifiers, and mobile network information. This information will never be communicated to third parties unless you provide prior specific consent.

– Analytical Information that includes information about how you use the Application.

--snip--

IIRC, they said it affect less than 1% of their users in the past[1]. How do they even confirm it? Which number are they using to calculate this? The download numbers on Play Store?

--snip--

That wallet's hack caused to lose value cryptocurrencies worth $35 million, how does this represent less than 0.1% of Atomic Wallet app users?

https://cointelegraph.com/news/what-is-mimblewimble-and-how-does-it-work
https://www.coinspeaker.com/guides/what-is-mimblewimble-blockchain/

Again: there's no way BTC will adopt this.

And technically, Bitcoin onchain transactions are not peer to peer. They propagate to the whole network. Lightning transactions, that's peer to peer.

Does the price(how much it costs) of a Bitcoin hardware wallet determine how secure your bitcoins will be when you use them?

Or, rather, as the main factor of being opened source, does the price to determine the security of my bitcoins when using a hardware wallet?

The question perhaps should be, "Would Ordinals usage increase and therefore increase the demand for block space"? If the answer is "Yes", then I believe the demand for Bitcoin would also increase.

And to what other requirements? Ram, internet speed? Should we also compare those to the Satoshi era?
Centralization because people can't afford to run a node when we're talking about ASICs in the thousands of $ that are close to not even working in a normal house without modifications to the breaker and powerlines?

I'm genuinely curious about what is so threatening about increasing the size by a factor of 2 or 4 for example.
I've yet to hear an argument about how doubling or quadrupling the size of the blocks will be a bigger threat than the spam attack that turns users away, the centralizations of mining pools of farms, the near monopoly in mining gear production, the already enormous percentage of nodes hosted in data centers, and so on and on!