my point is that all the functions that you could come up with will be the same exact function. the most thing you could do is to skip a very small number of operations in the end. for example to get the first bit the only thing you can skip is the final addition after the 64th step of b to h. this that kind of addition could be done in one CPU register, it is not really a big deal to skip them.

something doesn't make sense to me here.
you say you bought bitcoin, so you must have bought it with fiat on a bitcoin-fiat exchange. but then you say you stored your coins on an exchange and continue to say it was cryptopia, that is an altcoin exchange. so in other words you bought your bitcoin on a bitcoin exchange and then decided to open an another account on an altcoin exchange for storage?

if a stable coin is truly backed by fiat 1:1 there is no threat to anything or anyone. it is going to be working just like other online payment processors such as PayPal, if you think about it PayPal is also a "stable coin" without the blockchain part! the only fear they have which they are calling "threat" is lack of regulations and compliance with baking laws.


first of all this is not about "stable coins" it is mostly about Libra!
secondly it is not going to "mainstream", this is just drama.
and finally you are missing the most important difference: centralization

there are a ton of things wrong with this!
starting with the shadiness and bad reputation of the owner of this DEX, McAfee himself that is not to be trusted. it is also recreation of (and mostly copy) of the existing DEX on ethereum blockchain that is doing the exact same thing so there is no point in it even existing in first place!
they are also creating two new tokens to dump on people's head and make money from that!

i also find paying trading fees to the "decentralized" exchange owner a very absurd thing. being "decentralized" should always mean there is absolutely no middle man. paying 0.2% fee on each trade or a $100 total fee in first go doesn't make any sense to me.

i don't think it is mathematically possible to come up with such a formula because of how hash algorithms work. SHA256 like all hash algorithms don't work on individual bits, they take a block of them and work on all the bits at the same time then use the result in calculation of next block.
in other words f1, f2, ... are all the same exact "formula" and O_1, O_2,... are bits of the final chunk.
One iteration in a SHA-2 family compression function from wikipedia:


so for example to calculate O_1 you have to first calculate small_sigma0 and small_sigma1 for that block to build the 256 bit working vector then perform the permutation (big_sigma0, big_sigma1, CH, MAJ, ROR) on its words 64 times and get A (word) out and get its first bit. there is no math to simplify that.

i think it only affects the decisions of the government(s) about bitcoin and mostly for taxation purposes. for example when they say "it is not reliable means of payment and is highly speculative asset class" that means the government would consider bitcoin as an asset, commodity,... instead of a currency. and that mostly translates into how they tax it.
otherwise bitcoin is what it is. it is a global censorship resistant payment system that has a volatile price that is on the rise in long term due to it still being in it s early stages of adoption. what these reports end up saying regarding bitcoin is not going to change that.

as it was said, i also believe it is about how you are introduced to bitcoin but it is not only about them being told it is "get rich quick" it is about all types of misinformation that people received even on a technical level. i have seen people explain bitcoin in "technical terms" and make it look like as if it is coming out of thin air and the security is a chance/luck thing! suddenly we see a lot of people who misunderstand how bitcoin works and have doubts about its security, and since we are talking about valuable money here they won't get near it.
of course we always also have a lot of FUD scaring people off with their portrayal of bitcoin as a criminal's tool.

this was already discussed a million times (use search). Satoshi's account here is locked and besides posting on that account does NOT prove anything as bitcointalk database is not the safest thing in the world compared to a digital signature from a bitcoin private key!

at the very least "Be Patience" must never be your first suggestion! it should be the last one after at least 2 dozen other things to consider. for starters the investment must first be wise and real not bag holding any garbage and hoping for a good profit and calling that "patience".
this obviously works for bitcoin because even if the investors don't realize it, bitcoin has a good long term potential. but that is not what newbies do, instead they extrapolate it to altcoin market, buy bags of garbage, bag hold them and then keep telling themselves that they should be patient to see profit. the result is a lot of people with 80 to 95% losses because they were "patient". you can find at least a dozen topics in altcoin board every month telling others to be patient for the past 2 years that altcoins have been dumping consistently!

the internet is filled with them each time there is a price drop like what we had a month ago and price stays down like this. even tradingview is being flooded by these. basically these are people who are confusing technical analysis with children's drawing and randomly draw lines on the charts thinking they have "analyzed" the market and publish their "valuable" findings!

i would drop using these silly online tools and use a decent library but here is a workaround in case you were interested:
(first a simple explanation of what is "message signature verification") an ECDSA signature is two numbers known as r and s. the math behind it has some characteristics that allows you to recover possible public keys from signature by knowing the message that was signed. so the first step is to base64-decode the signature, take r and s out, hash the message and calculate public key(s).
the second step is to convert that public key to an address and then check it with what user gave you.

knowing that you can easily convert a bech32 address to a legacy address* to fool the "silly" tool to pass the second step. all you need is a bech32 decoder

example https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.msg52763726#msg52763726
bc1qarr0w42t3z7xtrcgwxh6kcckzq47tme5xfnj4n ->
e8c6f7554b88bc658f0871afab6316102be5ef34 ->
1NDp7v4M1fueJDob7mrnJktn1SnT4yramy
now the silly tool passes the verification!

you can't use this for addresses starting with 3 (nested SegWit) because they are hash of a hash of public key (it is more complicated than that, just simplifying it) so you have to have the public key and can't use what i explained above.

* node that this is a  workaround and should not be done for anything else. the decoding is done by knowing bech32 encodes "OP_0 <hash160(pubkey)>" and base58 encodes "version <hash160(pubkey)> checksum"

---

how about an "opt-out" option so that user could post a string (eg. nobot) in first line and get the bot to ignore the message.

but they do explain it. i haven't really checked ICOs ever since they are bullshit but those that i've seen have always explained where the funds are going to be spend on. they even always have a road-map too!
you see the problem is not with explanation of where the funds that were raised are going to be spend in. the problem is not actually spending them where they promised after they raised the funds. otherwise when it is time for raising funds they will tell you anything you want and they will make all kinds of fake promises.

these are both wrong and already discussed.

there is no other coin that has a security of even 10% of what bitcoin has which means by using them you will reduce your security by a lot.

no it doesn't.
by the way, i hope you realize that "coin swap" costs more because of the unfavorable rates, 2 additional fees and also the best way of doing it is through lightning network and atomic swaps!

that is not something the "community" has to support. the option is there and you can choose to use it yourself without anybody being able to prevent you as long as that other altcoin is also decentralized.

that is simply impossible. so either your "friend" is lying about losing his coins or he is lying about his wallet being "offline". you should also keep in mind that creating a wallet online and then going offline doesn't do anything. the real cold storage wallet must be created on an offline and clean computer that has never been connected to the internet and will never be connected. you can simply use a live Linux for this purpose.

first of all where?

secondly, just like any other big transaction you may find on the blockchain you have no way of knowing who is making them and from where to where and no way of knowing why. everything you read on these bullshit websites like whale-alert, and news sites is pure nonsense.

and finally even if there was such a move, it is Binance which is an altcoin exchange. even though they have a bitcoin market too but it is not even big enough in comparison to change anything.

ps. i don't know about you but i refuse to believe that someone, even if they have a ton of bitcoin, is stupid enough to move ~80 million dollar worth of bitcoin in one move to a centralized unsafe exchange that could either scam them or get hacked in a blinking of an eye!

well i haven't been around for that long to have such old coins but i expect to be around for another decade and then these coins would be 15 years old and i will not have moved them still. there is no reason to move them, it is mainly the first coins i have ever bought and there isn't that many inputs for me to consolidate so there is no problem with the fees. i am also holding it for sentimental values.

so the summary of your wall of text is that you saw a couple of tweets from one person on twitter (who had a business that failed 7 years ago) who was saying he basically has no bitcoin but is bag holding a lot of the two most centralized altcoins and now you think "early adopters" are backing out?!!! how did you come up with that conclusion exactly

this seems like a lot of effort, cost and complications. not to mention risk since you are trusting that the company offering this service is going to stick around for years and not just go under because of lack of customers or something like that!

another problem is when you have to change address or wallet. changing address problem could be solved by using an HD setup (share the seed instead of a single key) but not the wallet change. for instance when you want to upgrade to a SegWit wallet and create a new one. or when you want to claim an airdrop like bcash and have to stop using the old wallet so that you can import it in that altcoin's wallet and claim it. have to create a new wallet afterwards.

people seriously have to get into the habit of either compiling from sources or verify the things they download and it goes for everything. Tor also uses PGP signatures to sign their releases and they have a help page explaining how to do it here: https://support.torproject.org/tbb/how-to-verify-signature/
that simple move can easily solve a great number of issues (such as malware infections, losing data, losing bitcoin,...).

that sounds reasonable and maybe if an alt tech discussion were made it would die on arrival. but here is my problem with that logic.
when comparing the ratio (50% of topics) you can't really consider the topics that are spamfests. right now on page 1 of altcoin discussion board (the place where you would post any altcoin technical discussion due to lack of a dedicated board) contains 35 topics without the stickies, 14 of them are price/investment related (keep in mind there is an altcoin speculation board!!!), out of the rest i can see maybe 1 or 2 topic worth staying in first page and the rest may be good but are already answered and at this point are being spammed by repeated replies.
so in my logic, if today somebody started only 1 technical discussion there it should be considered 50% of the topics.