PayPal, etc transactions are reversible, so if a twitter account hack results in someone sending payments to one of these types of accounts, the payments can be reversed. This is not true for bitcoin nor LN payments.

Like I mentioned, twitter reduced the future potential benefit to a similar hack as what took place in 2020 by preventing users from being able to post bitcoin addresses.

This person does not appear to be associated with Twitter, beyond having a Twitter account. I am not sure why news outlets are citing this person. Most likely, this person was speculating as to what using bitcoin via twitter would look like.

I would also find it very unlikely that Twitter will encourage using bitcoin on its platform. Doing so would create a lot of risks, one of which being that it gives people direct financial incentives to hack Twitter accounts. After Twitter was hacked last year, they prevented (verified?) users from posting bitcoin addresses in their tweets.

Twitter is far from a "non-evil" company for many reasons. They allow terrorists who want to commit mass murder to publish propaganda to get more people to join them, while they censor people they disagree with.

If people are displaying LN invoices as a means to receive payment, there should not be a major de-anonymization issue, as it is not trivial to get a lot of information about transaction history from a LN invoice, and is even more difficult if you are not actively monitoring a channel.

It has the potential to be even worse than what you describe. Accounts can get hijacked, and new addresses/invoices can be changed in a profile without someone creating even a single fraudulent tweet.

There is generally a higher threshold for a new post to be on-topic when the previous post was made a long time ago. In many cases, it would be better for someone to create a new thread instead of posting in an old thread. If a post is not substantial enough to account for making a new thread, it may not be appropriate to create the post. One reason for this is because once a thread is bumped, everyone is encouraged to read it by way of the thread appearing on watchlists, and at the top of the sub it is in, and is marked as having new replies. Someone reading to an old thread may reply to the second or third to last post (for example), that may have been written months or years ago, and now contain outdated information.

I do agree that it would be nice for the mods to have an option to give a more specific reason as to why a post was removed. Currently, some mods will send an (automated) PM from their forum account for certain reasons, however not all mods do this, and this invites mods that do this to receive excessive number of PMs from forum users.

There were at least one post deleted belonging to LoyceV, and at least two posts by farcateshot, and one post by Cexmo. I checked all the other posts made by people belonging to everyone except the OP, and they all still exist. Unless posts were deleted prior to loyceV scraping them, the number of posts deleted count is likely off as well.

When you receive bitcoin to an address/public key, in order to spend that bitcoin, you need to use a private key associated with that specific address to spend that specific output. When you sign a transaction that spends your bitcoin, you are signing that you are spending a specific output to a specific transaction.

For example, if you receive a transaction to address bc1abc123...3 that is the 3rd output to txid 34def...45, you must use the private key associated bc1abc123...3 that signs that you are spending the 3rd output to txid 34def...45.

The transaction fee is not part of the UTXO set. If for example, the sum of all inputs is 1.01 and the sum of all outputs is 1.00 BTC, the difference, 0.01 BTC will be added to the block subsidy of the coinbase transaction of the block that confirmed the transaction. If the above transaction was the only transaction confirmed, the coinbase transaction would include no inputs and 6.26 BTC in total outputs.

IIRC, if a reference thread is locked, it is not possible for someone to add support for a flag, while you can oppose a flag that is referenced by a locked thread.

If fees are very high, you can opt to either send more to the recipient than they are owed, or to pay a higher fee than necessary, if that means avoiding having some coin sent to a change address, and the additional amount you are paying is less than the additional fee you would have paid if coin was sent to a change address.

The lack of difficulty increases is in part due to the chip shortage experienced globally. Mining manufacturers are unable to ship as many miners as they might otherwise be able to due to a lack of chips.

This will take time, but as the chip shortage alleviates, and as more efficient miners are produced, the difficulty will increase.

Well you need to make assumptions and act accordingly. If you think fees will reach 0.001 for a one input, one output txn, the threshold for consolidating will be low. If you consolidate into too few inputs, you may end up paying unnecessary fees when you are having to send some of your coin to a change address when you could have planned ahead to consolidate to the point in which you can spend entire inputs without having to send a portion of an input to a change address.

I think we both know that the majority of merit received by legendary members is not received by those with 19 or 34 merit. The overwhelming majority of merit received by legendary members is received by those with a lot of merit.

When presenting numbers, I would suggest that you understand the context of the data you are presenting. You should also work to remove your own personal bias when presenting information. You should not look to data in order to confirm what you want to argue, but rather you should look to data in a neutral way, and form conclusions based on said data.

Even if someone is new to using GPG, I would recommend relying on a Web of Trust and/or signed keys. I might compare relying on an unsigned key to be similar to relying on a generic signed bitcoin message that could potentially involve you not being the intended audience of the signor (the signed message is being reused).

I don't think there are any lenders on this forum with the required experience to be able to evaluate your collateral, and perfect a security lien on your shares.

The terms of any loan secured by shares in a startup are not going to be very attractive to the borrower due to the risky nature of startups. If you only need ~$5k for 3 months, you will likely find better terms using a credit card or a signature loan. 

Cloud mining companies have historically almost always been a scam. However there has also been a market for cloud mining, in part because people are greedy.

I would expect for people to continue getting burned from cloud mining scams.

al-Qaeda is part of the Taliban, and continues to be part of the Taliban, despite what you will hear from Biden. al-Qaeda is a threat to the entire civilized world.

ISIS-K is made up of people from the Taliban who thought the Taliban was not extreme enough (if that is possible). They are another terrorist organization that is also a threat to the civilized world, and is the group that was apparently behind the terrorist attack at the Kabul airport last week.

Technically it is not necessary to sign ThomasV's key, but it is a good practice to do so once you are confident you can trust the key. Some people have many keys on their keychain, and it is not outside of the realm of possibilities for someone to have an imposter key on their keychain. Signing keys you know you can trust means there is not the risk that someone later compromises your verification method(s), and if a key does not match what you have signed, it will set off a red flag.

I don't think it is appropriate for merit sources to only give merit to those that help them specifically. Merit sources should be giving merit to high quality posts, and should be encouraging people to make more high quality posts.

The term high quality post is subjective, but it reasonably should not be limited to those that help the merit source.

If you are a legendary member, you need to have received a lot of merit, 1000 if you are a new era newbie, or a minimum of 500 if you created your account prior to the implementation of the merit system.

If you have received a lot of merit in the past, you are likely to receive a lot of merit in the future, assuming you maintain your posting habits.

If you have received a lot of speeding tickets in the past, you will likely receive an elevated number of speeding tickets in the future.

There may be other issues with the merit system.

If someone is not using two mixers, they might not otherwise use a similar time interval to mix their coins. Also, once a person's coin has passed through (a) mixer(s), they might spend their coin at a diverse set of merchants.

So using a second mixer may be providing additional data points to an adversary who is trying to break a user's privacy.

I was referring to blockchain information. For example, a mixer may (intentionally or otherwise) keep track of what should be the private link between a transaction sending coin to a mixer and the transaction from the mixer.

In your example, you withdrew 0.256BTC from CM after sending a similar amount to CM. My example stipulates that you sent the 0.256BTC from CM to a honeypot multiple times, each time after the same approximately same interval after you sent a similar amount of BTC to CM.

If you do the above one time, there will be many input transactions in which you are sending 0.256BTC to CM. If you do the above five times, the number of potential input transactions irrelevant to you is reduced. Eventually, if you do the above with sufficient frequency, an adversary will be able to reasonably conclude all transaction both to and from a mixer you used.