Actually no.
If you want proper security for your coins you have to start with a setup where the seed or private key(s) never get into the online world.
This means hardware wallet, or an offline computer or signing device, but also means the seed backups are done and stored properly (offline, pen and paper, ..)

Imho the second step is a good practice, eg double check all the characters of an address when you send coins or when you paste "your" address anywhere.

Of course, some local security is welcome on the computer or smartphone the watch wallet is on, but, as you see, it's not the first in the list.


I see people were talking also about privacy.
Imho the talks about proper privacy of the wallet should start with a local Bitcoin Core. Else, if one uses a public server for his light wallet, his addresses can be linked and his privacy may be gone even if he uses Tor, just because at some point in the past he may have been using a CEX.

I think that we are simply just too early.
Crypto exchanges are just slowly starting to adopt LN (of course, it's a balance between earning some extra money as withdrawal fees and making withdrawals - and deposits - smoother).
Afaik LN is still labeled beta. This also doesn't help, but, since LN is still not out of problems... yeah...

The point is that a solution is necessary if we want bitcoin used as a currency by everybody. One path would be to fix LN and help it get mature. Another path would be finding/inventing other alternatives (on and off chain).



You are anti-LN and extremely harsh. You are not so far from truth, yet, not actually true either.
All service providers tried and try to offer IOUs. See PayPal and Revolut. Or remember that people kept Xapo wallets because "sending money" to each other (off chain, Xapo to Xapo) was free. I think that's now the same with Binance (and Binance Pay).

But LN needs actual Bitcoin locked for the channel. Yes, LN uses it's own units, the fact they are called Bitcoin is only convenience, and easy math because the channels are built with bitcoins.
On the other hand, it's far better than sending the bitcoins to an exchange then spend whatever odd wrapped bitcoin (i.e. IOUs on a completely unrelated blockchain).



All in all, my opinion is that LN just needs more time.
Maybe forum tips or signature campaigns offering LN payments could get LN used more at least in our community, as a form of support. Maybe...

I know what (F)OSS means. But is also the firmware or the apps also open source? Is he allowed to get them and install them himself?
As long as their HW sales go well, he is harmless, of course. But if the overall sentiment on Ledger products is similar to what I know on Bitcointalk bitcoin areas,... then those sales may not look that good... And if Ledger is planning to milk some money from, .. I don't know, advertising and "special offers" in LL, then he may start to matter.
Of course, as usual, I hope I'm wrong.

Since it's open source, there are chances for becoming a great tool.. when it will also offer updates too (even if only for Bitcoin). The only problem I see is that this has to get out of PoC fast, else he may end up with no "customers" "thanks" to the "great" ways Ledger is "attracting" customers in the last few years...

...I just hope Ledger will not come up with some nasty ideas to stop this guy.

19 - NeuroticFish

Thank you.

57 NeuroticFish

Please & thank you.

27 - NeuroticFish
31 - NeuroticFish

Thank you.

Based on the numbers you've shown, it looks like 2.4%. It may indeed be the 2% plus a tiny diff that doesn't really matter.


I guess that the second top up will actually give the correct info.

Imho it's not. CPU mining, even with strong CPUs, will not provide a meaningful hash rate. For Bitcoin you need ASICs.
However, with some luck you might find altcoins that can still be mined on CPU (and for that you have to ask in Altcoins area).
Just keep in mind that most probably you'll be breaking some rules/ToS/whatever if you do this.

Realistically I see two potential reasons:

1. Burn dust.
You will see that in many cases the amounts sent are very small. I guess that some use it as a safe burn address for the extra dust from their transactions.

2. Send a message.
* Some use vanity burn addresses for that as you can see in tx 55571ca5e1f86c11a5ec5837aa1edf4262042b4b18379373585047ce8f8938cf
* There may be hidden messages in some of those tx' OP_RETURN, but I don't know them.


Of course, there are unrealistic potential reasons too, the top one being that some may be under the impression if they send coins there they make a donation to Satoshi.

As said, if you want to avoid problems, just move your Bitcoins to another address under your control before playing with the other forks.
Or, if you are unsure and not too experienced with wallets, just ask somebody with good reputation (like LoyceV) do all this for you (probably for a fee).
Plus, if you have a significant amount of bitcoins you still want to hold, consider getting yourself a hardware wallet, get used with it, and only afterwards start moving coins around (preferably towards your hardware wallet).

There were quite a lot of crashes between Mt Gox and FTX. And most didn't refund. In such cases all the people who didn't understand what "not your keys, not your coins" means were crying for government protection. That's what I'm talking about.

You are right. You or me don't need that. But there are (sadly) soooo many people who simply can't take proper care of their money and don't care to read the basic rules... making us a tiny minority.
This being said... protection is good. For the many.

After years passing by and people hoping for institutional investors, now they are here. It's a bit late to ask whether that's good or bad. It's .. a fact of life, both good and bad.
It will bring more and more laws related to crypto - which is good (end of wild west of crypto, more protection) and also bad (blatant intrusion against privacy).
It will increase heavily its scarcity and bring wealth to early investors.
It should bring more money into development (which should also fuel inventions for the better).
It should bring acceptance as payment method on a daily basis, but possibly also the wide spreading of IOUs instead of actual bitcoins.
It will bring more strict taxation.


But imho none of these are unexpected.

From what I know it's more linked to the fact women's brain tends to get more mature a couple of years earlier than men.
And the result is that at an average, the men have a bigger tendency to take unnecessary risks.
So imho it's not as good as you want to present it

However, after a certain age I think that the numbers even up greatly.

Avem concurs.. nu chiar nou, dar se pare ca era sa-l ratam!

[FREE RAFFLE] BC.Game | Bonus code for $50 | Round #1
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5490378

Se pot castiga urmatoarele: 50$. Din cate inteleg sunt bani pe platforma BC.Game, dar care pot fi retrasi imediat.


Organizator: paid2

Modalitate de inscriere: se alege un numar de la 00 la 99 (care nu a fost deja rezervat).
Cine are cel putin 500 merite poate alege doua numere... si nu mai sunt multe!

15 - NeuroticFish
19 - NeuroticFish

Thank you!

I was hoping that the ordinals spam would take a break already, at least until Monday evening, but no...
So I don't expect all speculators are on holiday either.
But it doesn't matter. Halving is ~24 days away.

With halving being less than 1 month away and with the influx of money from ETF... I don't think that 50k is possible any longer.
Of course, don't take my word for it, my crystal globe is broken.

As soon as you send your coins in others' custody,... you put your money at an unnecessary risk. (Not your keys, not your coins).
Some services will offer big returns and may scam sooner or later (even if not HYIP scams from start).
Some services will offer laughably small returns.

The history until now has shown that (as an average) crypto businesses tend to not have a long life (to say it nicely).
And the history until now has shown that keeping your bitcoins safely in your own custody for multiple years was the best approach.

That's correct.
Some may remember the not-too-long period when animated images were allowed as avatars and some campaigns started using that.
It soon became rather annoying and soon enough theymos no longer allowed them.

Now just imagine what would happen when a lot of people would put in videos, especially on auto-play...


So imho the proposal can work only without auto-play (as already said).
And really, I don't know why would that be needed when somebody can add it just in the way Royse posted the previous example. After all, the videos are not hosted here anyway.