I agree, I think it is far superior to use a seed in all cases, but especially if you are going to write down your backup.

If you are using a BIP 39 seed, I understand you only need the first 3 letters of a seed word to know the entire seed word (when dealing with the English word list). If you are not sure what the first 3 letters are, the rest of the word will narrow down the potential words. If you are missing information about some of your words, the number of potential seeds is much lower than when dealing with a private key.

Thats fair enough.

I think you know it is trivial to change your IP address. Unless the casino is requiring KYC prior to playing, it is also trivial to create a new account. You can use a mixer to hide blockchain evidence you have played at the casino previously.

If a gambler is allowed to gamble their deposit, and their deposit never confirms, if the gambler had a net losing bet, the house edge will effectively have been lowered, possibly to something below zero. A negative house edge is going to result in the casino losing money over the long run.

A deposit not confirming that was allowed to be gambled, will pretty much always mean the customer took some action to intentionally prevent the deposit from confirming. This will pretty much always be because the customer's balance is less than the deposit amount (they lost money gambling). A customer will generally have no reason to prevent a deposit from confirming if he is a net winner in his wagers.

You can solve all of these issues by coming up with a system that indicates if a character is a number, an upper case letter, or a lower case letter.

For example, you could underline every upper case letter, and overline every number (those without an underline, nor an overline would be a lower case letter by process of elimination).

---

You can always check to ensure you wrote down a private key correctly by typing the private key after you write it down. If the key matches, you know the private key was written correctly, and if it doesn't match, you can look to see if the error was a reading or writing mistake and make the appropriate correction.

The problem IMO with writing down a private key is that people's handwriting will generally change over time, and something you can easily read today may be illegible in several years.

If I am not mistaken, there is no technical reason why a RBF transaction cannot be double-spent in a way that results in entirely different outputs than the original transaction. Most wallet implementations will not allow for this, so you will have to have some technical know-how in order to create this kind of double-spend transaction. AFAIK, there are ~zero businesses that accept 0-confirmation RBF transactions, so there is really not much incentive for anyone to create these types of malicious double-spends.

The issue of transaction malleability was solved via BIP66. Further, as you note, SW parent transactions are not maileabile.

CPFP is when the output of an unconfirmed transaction is spent in a transaction with a high enough fee such that the total fee in both transactions is high enough (when considering the total size) to get both transactions confirmed based on the current fee market. A casino could potentially offer to create a CPFP transaction for customer deposits as a "service" they charge for in order to get their deposit transactions confirmed more quickly.

Also, if a casino requires their customers to have accounts, they can extend "credit" to their long-standing customers who have a history of having their deposits confirm, and charge a "fee" for taking on the risk the deposit is double spent in a way that the casino does not receive the deposit.

The thread the OP created in dev and tech was removed. I don’t think the OP actually had any interest in putting the rant on the blockchain, that was pretextual to wanting to post the rant multiple times throughout the forum.

The rant itself is very extensive, but it is really difficult to actually discuss because in part there is no author, and in part because it is so long and covers so many topics. You can’t realistically have a discussion about that rant.

If someone is banned, their profile will look the same as someone whose account is not banned on the forum. I believe that BPIP uses the modlog to account for when an account is banned, and if they show up in the modlog as being banned, they will apply an "autoban" indicator on their website.

I am not sure how bitcointalk's custom implementation of SMF 1.1.19 handles if a particular ban will show up in the modlog or not. I believe at one point, this was determined by the specific procedure a mod followed to ban an account.

Unless someone is a prolific spammer, or otherwise causing a lot of problems, I think it is pretty rare for the ban evasion rule to be strictly enforced. Bila0 appears to have been a forum member for quite some time, although he infrequently posts, and has earned little merit. Bila0's alt account was banned almost a year ago, so I would be somewhat surprised if he was banned for ban evasion, although being that there was a report of ban evasion just a day ago, his account may have received additional scrutiny, and if he had more than just the one account banned for independent reasons, there may be a higher chance he was banned for ban evasion.

AFAIK, mods have the ability to enter a custom ban message and absent a custom ban message, a default message will be displayed. Based on what I have seen banned users post, the custom ban message has changed over time. I am not sure if all mods have the ability to enter a custom message. I am willing to speculate that the mods do not enter any custom message when handing out the majority of bans. For example, if someone is banned for 14 days, a custom message will be used to inform the person they are banned for 14 days, but if the mod set the ban length to 20 days, there is nothing that would catch the error, and the message would still display 14 days.

Some mods use userscripts, and they could presumably be modified to allow the mods to quickly set a custom ban message when initiating a ban. Alternatively, theymos could modify the SMF implementation the forum uses to allow for mods to select a ban message from a dropdown, and/or select a number of ban reasons and/or have a temp ban automatically create a custom ban message.

I think there is an argument to say there should be a limit to the number of threads someone can create each week in P&S that does not receive at least, say 5 replies from at least 2 people other than the OP (or some other combination of replies and unique commentators).

If you reach your limit, you can combine threads.

The purpose would be to keep the first page(s) free of threads that are uninteresting to other people. If no one is replying to your threads, you are not creating topics that are interesting to others.

A seed being exposed would be predicated by malware being transmitted to the airgapped machine. The seed could be then leaked via the signature of a transaction. For example, malware could direct the infected computer to use an R-value in a certain range if a particular word is part of a seed. The R-value could also leak where in the seed the particular word is by the R-value being in the i-th portion of the range if the seed word is the i-th word in the seed. One random word could be leaked in a transaction. Once enough transactions have been broadcast, the attacker would know all of the seed words, including the order. The attacker would need to monitor for approximately 5 * 10^4 R-values.
Are you aware of any instances in which a trezor was hacked via malware? (this would not include any attach involving physical access to the device). There is at least one example I am aware of involving an exchange that had it's air-gapped cold wallet hacked. Several years ago North Korea had what was presumably their air gapped computer involving one of their missles they were test launching hacked, although this may have involved physical access, I am not sure.

edit:
This is a fair point. Although I would not say it is impossible. A QR code can generally hold up to 3kb worth of data. Very few things in this world are "impossible".

When you communicate via QR codes, you are essentially using an image to send information to another device instead of using a USB cable. Unlike a USB cable, a QR code will transmit data at a much lower frequency, and the data will only be transmitted at your specific request.

While more difficult, it is possible to transmit malware via a QR code. Such malware would likely be targeted at you specifically. Malware could potentially cause your airgapped computer to sign your transaction in a way that reveals a portion of your seed and/or private key to someone who knows where to look based on the malware. To anyone else, the transaction would look completely normal.

A Hardware wallet such as a trezor for example offers much better security against malware. There are some potential security concerns with a trezor if an adversary were to have physical access to the device, but most people are more vulnerable to a $5 wrench attack, IMO.

I don't think any of those would necessarily identify a user. At least not with any amount of certainty. Also, the reason why someone might be targeted is not that they were talking with satoshi, it would be because someone might be able to infer how much coin they have, and the redactions I proposed should remove that risk.

IIRC, theymos has said in the past that satoshi always used tor to access the forum. So any IP logs would be from what was at the time tor exit nodes.

Wallet explorer doesn't actually display unconfirmed transactions, in fact, they will not show transactions that have been recently confirmed, as they only update their database every so often.

For the above reason, I think it would be fairly unusual for someone to look up their own transactions on walletexplorer on any kind of a regular basis. Also, the nature of walletexplorer makes me believe it is fairly common for people to visit their site multiple times to view linked transactions.

What you say may be true for a block explorer such as blockchain.com, but not walletexplorer.

I like to have a balcony with a view, preferably of some kind of body of water. Also important is a gym/fitness center in the building, along with a pool, and some type of a lounge. It is also preferable to have some kind of rooftop seating area that is open 24/7. Floor to dealing windows are also important.
There are plenty of buildings that meet my above criteria. The "best" in my view would be a building that meets the above criteria whose highest apartment is the highest above the ground. It would be awesome to find a building that has an available apartment that I could live in that would have be living above the clouds. Regardless of price, NYC is run so badly that I am not sure I would want to live there today, although London Breed does not do a much better job at running her city.

The actual quote is: "I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume." -- Satoshi
The above is per what is on one of the factoids that are displayed in an ad slot in 10% of page views of people that display ads.

Even if bitcoin did not have the success that it did in 2012, there are plenty of reasons why governments would have frowned upon those who had created it, as in 2012 it allowed people to get around AML and tax rules. Obviously, now in 2021, bitcoin is much more successful than it was in 2012, and the success of bitcoin in 2021 is probably a once in a multi-lifetime event.

Would you consider releasing satoshi's PMs with the sender/recipient anonymized? For example, if kiba exchanged PMs with satoshi, you could change "kiba" to a random handle. It would not necessarily need to be a random string in order to allow for readability. You could also redact things such as names, addresses, bitcoin addresses, email addresses and similar. When discussing amounts of coin an individual has, you could redact the specific amounts. You could also only release PMs that were received by satoshi up to x time after he last logged into his account, as I am sure that a lot of crazy things have been sent to satoshi since he left the forum.

If you have been hacked or stolen from, there is a good chance you will ask others for help in getting your coin back and will make the details of the transaction public, so there may be multiple people looking at your particular transaction.

This means you could view your own transaction, but 20 other people might also view your transaction. You might also view 100 other transactions unrelated to you. There would not be anything unique about you visiting your own transaction, and the site would have no way of knowing you are viewing your own transaction.

Just because a transaction belongs to you and you visit a block explorer, doesn’t mean the block explorer has any additional Information about you.

I don’t think there were any apartments in the WTC.

There are some sky scrapers in Dubai, UAE that are hundreds (thousands?) of feet in the air and are so high that some apartments are above the clouds. They also have some pretty cool amenities. The climate is too hot in the UAE for me.

There are buildings in NYC on billionaire row that are similar to the above, but sadly I am priced out of these apartments.

There is widespread bipartisan support for Israel. Only those who are left wing extremists want to divest from Israel and remove military support. None of this is mainstream.

If the left wants to stay in power, they will push for mail in voting in 2022. It appears they are doing exactly that. Why else would they be pushing for vaccine and mask mandates? 

It is not necessary to disallow predators from joining. If we don't want preditors to join, we can simply remove the incentives a preditor might have to join the forum. Some preditors might join anyway, but they will probably not prey on kids on the forum.

If someone is talking about their homework, IMO they are more likely to be in their 20's than a softmore or a freshman in high school (at least on these forums). So if someone is a freshman in high school, talking about homework, a potential predator would have no idea how old they are, and the person would most likely be an adult. This means this person is not going to get preyed on (hopefully).

That is both false and ridiculous. You created your account 6 years ago, you were not born 6 years ago. The purpose of my proposal is to prevent preditors from coming to the forum, the value of which far exceeds playing dumb word games.

A rule against posting that someone is under 16 or 17 would prevent the worst predators from wanting to come to the forum. The age the OP claimed to be is especially young, and if people come to the forum looking for kids the age the OP claims to be on any kind of regular basis, it is going to lose a lot of valuable members, as most people do not want to be associated with a place that attracts that kind of people, and depending on how bad things get, the forum could get shut down and/or PMs could end up in the hands of law enforcement in mass.

There is no reason to be claiming that you are a young child, just as there is no reason to be contacting someone because they are a young child.

It appears that Robinhood is trying to emulate Coinbase. To my knowledge, Robinhood has vastly lower fees than Coinbase charges, although crypto, and the associated risks of allowing withdrawals may get Robinhood to increase their crypto-related fees, or otherwise adjust how they manage risk.

I would expect Robinhood to steal retail market share from Coinbase and other similar retail-focused exchanges. Without its own exchange, Robinhood is not going to be able to attract institutional, high-volume traders that provide lots of liquidity on both sides of the order book.