They way I approach it is to forget about DT1 altogether. After all, my personal trust list is, well, personal. If there is someone whose judgement I think is good (in terms of both feedback left and their own trust list) I'll include them. Poor judgement, I'll exclude them. If my inclusion or exclusion makes the difference to whether they are DT1 or not, then so be it, but I don't let it guide my decision.

I can see where you are coming from, but how can I judge whether someone is displaying good or poor judgement (so I can decide whether to include or exclude them as above) with secret ballots? It would be like allowing secret voting in Congress/Parliament/Government. How can I vote for a representative without knowing what they stand for?

Does it have to be Chrome, or would they accept Chromium based browsers? On the rare occasion I have a need for a Chromium based browser, I always use Ungoogled Chromium.

People place far too much trust in Google.

Google don't have dedicated employees who sit and examine the code of every single update to every single app, add on, and extension they host. They do the most basic checks, if any, to test whether applications are legit or malicious. We constantly see new applications which are outright malware, which are designed to mimic genuine ones, which do all variety of things, appearing on the Playstore and Chrome Extension library.

Google don't care about your safety or security. They care about mining and selling your data. That's where their profits come from. They are not your friend. Stop trusting them. If you are going to install some new application, the onus is on you to make sure it is safe.

If someone emailed you a bunch of code and said "Run this on your system", would you do it? Of course not (at least, I sincerely hope not). If someone approached you in the street and said "Let me borrow your laptop/phone so I can install some programs on it", would you hand it over?

Why then do people just download and install completely unknown software, apps, add ons, etc. from complete strangers with zero due diligence? It is absolutely mind blogging people are this careless, especially when it comes to money.

And stop using Chrome. It is spyware.

He keeps making it up because people keep giving him publicity by posting his lies on here, on reddit, on twitter, etc. Like all trolls he feeds on attention, good or bad. Ignore him and he'll go away.

Neither Blockchain nor Electrum are any cheaper than each other. Both allow you to set your own fees, and so both can be as cheap or as expensive as you choose.

Blockchain is absolutely not safer than Electrum. Being a web wallet, the security of your blockchain wallet is reduced to a simple password. Since most people don't use password managers and random password generators, your password is probably something easily remembered and therefore easily cracked. You are also subject to phishing attacks, fake sites, password resets, account hacks, server hacks, etc., and you also have to take blockchain.com at their word and completely trust that they don't have access to your seed or keys.

I've seen a couple of users mention in the past that they like earning these tokens, because although they know what they earn will only be worth a few cents (if they can even find a buyer), they hold on to the hope that one of them will exponentially grow. I suppose it's people who missed out on the early days of bitcoin, and seem to think that if you collect enough useless tokens at least one of them will turn in to "the next bitcoin", which is obviously not the case.

I've also pointed out that even with this line of reasoning, simply getting a job and buying these tokens will still result in much larger holdings, but as you say, objectivity goes out the window.

Seems I won the activity requirement lottery, and ranked up on just my second eligible activity increase (784, 798).

Happy new year to me

SegWit doesn't change the fee you need to pay in terms of sats per vbyte. You can make a 1 sat/vbyte transaction equally as well from a legacy address or a SegWit address, and both would have an equal chance of confirming in the next block. A SegWit and a legacy transaction with the same fee in terms of sats per vbyte will confirm at the same time (excluding the scenario of a backed up mempool with several megabytes of transactions at the same fee rate). Neither is given priority.

What SegWit does do is decrease the effective size of your transaction in terms of vbytes, so the same fee rate (in sats/vbyte) is cheaper overall. For example:

Let's say we have a legacy transaction which is 1000 vbytes, so 1 sat/vbytes costs 1000 sats.
The same transaction from a SegWit address might be only 500 vbytes. We can either pay 1 sat/vbyte, costing 500 sats and saving us 500 sats, or we can pay the same 1000 sats and end up confirming faster as we have paid 2 sats/vbyte. Or we can pay somewhere in between, and be both a little faster and a little cheaper.

Do we really need a new topic on this convicted criminal and scammer every day?

No wallet is inherently cheaper than any other wallet. Any good wallet should let you set your own fees, and you pay a fee depending on how full the mempool is and how fast you need your transaction to confirm. Take a look at this thread to learn how to work out an appropriate fee for your needs: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182906.0

Withdrawal fees and transaction fees are two different things. Binance (and most exchanges) use a tiny portion of your withdrawal fee to cover the transaction fee, and then they pocket the rest. These services are not wallets. Don't store your coins on them.

Bitcoin.com is a known scam site designed to trick newbies in to buying trash altcoins. I would stay well away from their wallet.

That is appealing though. I can post on the forum while lying in bed, while watching TV, while stirring a pot of chilli, while sitting in the car waiting for someone I'm picking up, etc.

Your point about the time/effort ratio is obviously spot on, and I earn a lot more from my regular job than I do from renting my signature and avatar, both in terms of absolute earnings and in terms of per unit time, but I can't do my regular job when I've otherwise got 10 or 20 minutes to spare like in my examples above. If it's a choice between killing time browsing Facebook or playing Candy Crush, or learning and discussing on here, I'd still be picking the latter even without a financial incentive.

I suppose the line is when you start dedicating 8 hours or more a day to participating in bounty campaigns. In those cases, a minimum wage job will generally pay significantly more than hours spent chasing worthless tokens. Get a physical job and you even get fit at the same time, rather than sitting hunched over a computer all day.

It is easy, though, if you are happy to work for peanuts. You can be accepted to YoBit or altcoin campaigns without even being able to formulate a coherent sentence. You can join bounty campaigns just by spamming Facebook shares and Twitter retweets. Minimal effort and zero brain power needed. Only time.

As far as I am aware, the KYC requirements currently only trigger for individual purchases over $3,000, so you should be able to make future purchases without issue. I've certainly not heard otherwise, and this quote from their website would seem to confirm it (emphasis mine):

Having said that, I'm sure if you were abusing this to send $2,900 to someone 3 times a day, BitPay would pick up on it and shut down your account. Their Terms and Conditions already include a clause about bringing that limit down:

I know as a consumer there is often not much you can do, but I have been actively switching away from any companies which are using BitPay. I don't want to support their shady business. BTCPay is a better alternative.

It caught my eye with the headline that it is "100% offline" and only communicates via QR codes. I assumed the USB port on the bottom was power pins only for charging and no data transfer. That was until I saw on their website that it does indeed have a data connection which you have to use to flash the firmware, meaning it is just as vulnerable to this attack vector as any other hardware wallet.

Beyond that, I don't see what it is offering that other wallets don't already? It seems to boast a lot of coins/tokens, but given that >99% of those 2000 assets are completely trash, that really doesn't appeal to me either. I think more competition in this space is always a good thing, but unfortunately there's not enough here for me to risk my funds on a new and untested product for essentially no new features.

This is far too complex, in my opinion. There are already users on DT1 (let alone regular users) who don't even understand the difference between leaving positive/negative ratings and including/excluding from your own trust list, and in what situations each is appropriate. Asking them to start voting on other ratings is bad enough, but giving options to pass the vote to someone else is far too much. Many will use it incorrectly, and many will ignore it because they don't understand it.

Further, this essentially turns ratings in to a lottery, where the rating might stay or might go depending on which other DT1 members are randomly selected to vote on it. Trust ratings from DT1 members should be reliable, and not based on chance. If they aren't reliable, then the user responsible should simply be excluded from DT1.

In my defense, I didn't actually watch the clip again before I posted it, I just found the link on YouTube as I remembered it from before. Obviously I had forgotten his accent, and he is performing on a British show so I incorrectly assumed he was British.

That and the fact that British and Australian accents are equally stupid, so I just lump you all together in my head.

Winky face but I hope you are offended.

In addition to pooya87's corrections above, there are a couple of other things wrong with this paragraph.

The phrase isn't secured by a "degree of randomness". The phrase is generated extremely precisely from the seed number, which should be entirely random. The reason it is 128 bits rather than 132 is not to do with how the words are chosen, but the fact that the last 4 bits are a checksum.

These custom words are also known as a passphrase. They are not part of your seed phrase. Your seed phrase remains as the 12 or 24 words it was previously. Passphrases are combined with the seed phrase to generate different sets of addresses. Some wallets (such as hardware wallets) place a limit of 100 characters as a passphrase, but theoretically they could be as long as you like. There is also no limit to how many different passphrases you can combine with a seed phrase to lead to different sets of addresses.

I actually prefer the term seed phrase rather than mnemonic phrase, since the last thing you should be doing with these phrases is relying on your memory to back them up.

I like this short clip from a(n) British Australian stand up comedian: https://youtu.be/ceS_jkKjIgo

Nothing happens when you're offended!

I definitely can, and I think it will only get worse as more and more people become eligible for DT1. I mean, we already have scam promoters and trust abusers on DT1. It's only a matter of time before we have enough to collude with each other in this way. Anonymous voting would also be difficult as fellow DT1s wouldn't know who to exclude that was downoting ratings inappropriately.

All in all, it's just another level of complexity which pushes the problem up a level rather than solving it. If someone is leaving ratings you disagree with, then remove or exclude that person rather than including/excluding people who are voting the correct/incorrect way on these ratings. We already have to build trust lists based on individual's ratings AND their trust lists AND their flag support/opposition. Do we really want to add their votes on other ratings to this as well?

Justin Sun, is that you?