There is no "exit strategy". Bitcoin is, per se, the exit. It is not a means, but an end. The way I see it, is to sell a few coins in case you really need them for your livelihood or something even more serious, but in general I personally find it obtuse to "exit" from the future of money.

Judging by the replies, though, I can notice lots of weak hands.

Can you give us a few examples? I have never witnessed DT1 people meriting doxxers.

I just tried installing a Monero full node on my Raspberry Pi 4 today. It didn't go well. Installation is spot on, and I'm glad that I could use the Monero GUI (which is officially supported by Monero dev team), but it's just too resource-requiring for a Pi that already runs a Bitcoin node.

The ugly part wasn't synchronization. That took a week on my HDD, and it's a reasonable amount of time given that Monero has an exponentially larger spend index size. The ugly part is that it's faster to run a pruned node on my main computer (with no running in the background) and open it up whenever I want to make a transaction, than connecting to my Raspberry Pi via remote node. It was trying to calculate the automatic fee, and had stuck...

Does it go slow to you too?

And absolutely avoid anything in plastic bottles that may make you not last at all. 

Picture coinjoin as a black box, where coins enter and leave the box as new coins. Let's make the hypothesis that each of the inputs is equally probable to create each of the outputs for the sake of simplicity (just like in this whirlpool coinjoin).

You see, you're right in the sense that all of the inputs have a slight connection with all of the outputs, but that's not the point. The point is that you can't match inputs with outputs, to de-anonymize the coinjoined outputs. Blockchain analysis is incapable to connect the dots, because first and foremost it relies on guesswork, and secondly good software (like Sparrow with Whirlpool) comes with anonymization techniques that hide IP address, OS, and other fingerprints, uses Tor etc.

The only right people have is down to an individual level; their private keys. That is the only right that is granted to them when they enter Bitcoin. And it is granted, not by a "creator". The creator of Bitcoin clearly stepped away. It is the protocol that grants them that right.

They do not possess rights to know the creator, the developers, the miners-- anyone. You don't need to trust any person, so why would you demand to know their name?

There have been quite convincing theories if you search the Internet. I myself have ended up to a suspect, even though with insufficient certainty. But, that's not the point. Attempts to dox someone should not be tolerated, and I don't see why Satoshi should be excepted.

I feel guilty only in the sense that I've engaged in such discussions, and posted a few comments on the given evidence. Maybe I shouldn't, and it's exaggerated as told by apogio. I have never analyzed or brought anything new to the table, so I can sleep easy in that sense.

This. Is. All. We've. Got. Texts from emails and the forum is all the information known by Satoshi. No person knows anything beyond that. We don't know if he was writing "blandly", that's on your hypothesis.

Lol, man. Just lol. You just found another candidate. Skills, means, mindset, profile, whatever. These are coincidences. Strong evidence involves scientific analysis.

These are ridiculous arguments to even have a slight certainty. But, besides that, you ignore a crucial part. Satoshi's and Nick Szabo's texts have been run as inputs in reverse textual analysis, and are strongly connected. For your theory to make sense, either Edward has to pretend to be Nick (which is another level of ridicule), or Edward's texts are more connected than Nick's (which is not the case as far as we're concerned).

Fair. I hope I haven't violated it. I'll stop talking about it.

I understand that you've come with good intentions, but if you display this poor judgment, then you'll quickly ruin your reputation. The law -in general- is a field with lots of questioning, but legislation is absolutely not down to question. An activity / service is either legal or illegal.

Bitcoin is both legal and illegal, depending the country. Your service is probably illegal in every country.

So you're not a legal service.

I don't want to accuse you of anything. It's just that you hadn't made it crystal clear. Now it is.

Is this supposed to convince me that it is legal?

My concern is the billing name. Who is this person to whom I'm buying on his name? What if I engage in illegal activities? Who will be accused? I haven't read Visa's and Mastercard's long list of terms and conditions, but I find it reasonable to assume that such "anonymous virtual cards" are prohibited, otherwise Visa and Mastercard would offer the option to use them anonymously themselves, and not grant it to "resellers" with questionable competence.

Absolutely. Sell, sell, sell! It will die soon! Just when it "died" from $69k to $16k in 2021, or from $20k to $4k in 2017, or from $1300 to $200 in 2013! It will repeat. We will experience another "death", so you should disembark as soon as possible. You don't wanna be here when we fall from $300k to $80k. Poor things, Bitcoiners!  

Edit: Ahh, the Bitcoin Obituaries part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrfrT2L48p4.

Eh... On a second thought, the more curious people involved, the greater the chances something really constructive and convincing is on the table (like this one). And also, we shouldn't be try to break security that cannot be restored (as opposed to cryptography), so I take it back as an analogy.

I mean, it can be an unplanned coincidence. The fact that "NS" is the starting letters of both Satoshi Nakamoto and Nick Szabo is the last piece I would call "evidence" if I ever supported that conspiracy theory.

That sums it up perfectly. I stay asides with Jack. It can't handle the entire populace by tomorrow morning, but it's one solution for micro-transactions.

I'll be honest, though, I'm quite disappointed by lightning network over the years. Not because of the liquidity nonsense argument, or the "custodial wallets". Merchants simply don't accept it, and those who do, see very little activity coming from it. People rather pay in altcoins, and I don't blame them. To run a lightning node, you need to have a Bitcoin and lightning node running 24/7, which is another level of lack of comfort. And on top of that, add that your payments might fail completing sometimes, and that you need to manage your sending and receiving capacity. Simply put, a no-go for the average consumer.

Thanks icopress for being punctual! As always.

Good morning.

https://twitter.com/naiivememe/status/1765103739684172257

Bitcoin contains no encryption. You probably mean cryptography, i.e., ECDSA.

We are not afraid of quantum computers working out collisions of hash functions like SHA256. Only solution to the ECDLP is what will potentially be feasible. Address management is also very vague. There is no direct relation with SHA256 and "address management" apart from HASH160 which involves SHA256.

If the "prime purpose" was to create peer-to-peer cash, then indeed, it hasn't convinced a lot of people to use it over their fiat currencies (even though it still serves that purpose for those in need). However, if the "prime purpose" was to create borderless, denationalized money that is resistant to governmental intervention, then I'll say it's very effective.  

Bitcoin does not have gas fees! Ethereum does.

Of course they do, but isn't every other financial instrument vulnerable to the same market manipulation?

I've decided to offer a very collectible Yu-Gi-Oh item of mine for sale. The very first Seto Kaiba deck released in the known Trading Card Game for the enthusiasts. Cards are in Mint and Near-Mint conditions.


It appears to be the case that there is no Starter Deck Kaiba 1st edition in English apart from factory sealed (which can worth beyond $5000, such as this one). If you search on Ebay and Cardmarket, you might find it in Portuguese, Asian, German and Italian, but no second-handed in English.

For this reason, I'll price it at 500 EUR, which is about 1/10th of the factory sealed. Please note that the current collectible is European product and not North American. That's why each card's number is SDK-EXXX and not SDK-XXX. Also, take into consideration that the box (for reasons yet unknown to me) does not display "First Edition" on the top, while the cards are in first edition. I would be glad if you found and shared another offer about second-handed SDK 1st edition in English. As far as I've searched, there is none.

• I only accept BTC and XMR.
• You'll have to pay any shipping costs, especially if you're outside the EU.
• I can provide you more pictures if you're interested.

I agree with both of you, but on the other hand, wouldn't it be more harmful to leave this "identity discovery" to malicious people alone? Satoshi's posts are open for public scrutiny. It is already apparent by now that there is a host variety of theories and evidence, such that nobody can be certain about a particular individual. I don't think that would be possible if simply curious people weren't involved in this.

I like thinking it as cryptographic security, wherein well-intentioned people attempt to break it, to ensure it is unbreakable. Not sure it is a good analogy, though.