Very interesting. Given how many new projects and exchanges are constantly popping up that turn out to be elaborate (or sometimes blatantly obvious) scams, I'm cautious whenever I see a new one, especially a new one that has big promises like this one does. However, having said that, a (very) quick look through their website, whitepaper and github does lead to the conclusion they are a serious team who know what they are doing.

As you say, being able to trade coins directly and securely from a hardware wallet without having to go through any kind of KYC would be a great step forward.

It's an interesting idea, but one that requires some work I think.

I would support a list that filters out bounty spammers. I personally have no one on my ignore list - when I do venture in to Bitcoin Discussion and other spammy boards, I much prefer to report the spammers than simply ignore their posts, but I can appreciate why people would want to ignore them. There would need to be some kind of consensus (voting?) as to who is added to the list, and some kind of method of review available, so users who improve their posting behavior or who are incorrectly tagged can appeal to be removed from said list. Theoretically, this could also help with general bounty spam if managers refused to accept users who were on some kind of shared ignore list.

However, I would strongly be against a list that ignores all newbies/junior members/users who have earned 0 merit. As mentioned by others in this thread, you are then excluding genuine new users and offering them no (or a very a slim) chance to work their way off of said list if the majority of merit givers are ignoring them by default.

Many plagiarizers will spin the text or Google-translate from other languages, and much of these posts aren't picked up by an automated checking script. You would need to manually review the posts, which is just unfeasible.



All the more reason to ban them, but plagiarizers should be banned regardless of account age. We teach 5 year olds not to copy each other's work. Plagiarizing just once is enough for you to fail a class or be kicked out of university. This isn't some unknown, arbitrary, irrational rule we are talking about here. Not stealing other people's work is basic common sense in every form of schooling and employment.



I do agree that banned members should be told why they were banned, if they were banned for plagiarism, also told that their ban won't be reversed. It would cut down massively on the number of these threads that are opened every day.

I disagree. The season will go to either City or Liverpool. Spurs haven't been beating the big teams, losing to Liverpool, City and Arsenal so far this season (although they did beat Chelsea). Arsenal are in the same boat, losing to City and Chelsea, and drawing to Liverpool and United. Both Spurs and Arsenal have been mostly consistent against the rest of the table, but with both Liverpool and City being unbeaten so far, and conceding less goals combined (City on 7 and Liverpool on 6) than either Spurs (16) or Arsenal (20), I really don't think they have a chance for top spot unless both City and Liverpool have a complete meltdown.

I've never really had a team in the Premier League, but I love Klopp and Salah won me Fantasy Football last year, so I'd love to see Liverpool take it.

Exactly. We spent the first part of this year with people complaining that the price went up too fast, that they didn't have enough of an opportunity to buy, that they didn't own enough, that they wished the price would fall again so they could buy more. Then, as soon as the price does start falling, the same people panic. Not only do they not buy more like they had wanted to just a couple of months prior, but they also panic sell and declare "bitcoin is dead". And then come the next bull run, some of these people will be back, buying in again at a higher price than they sold at, and lamenting yet again that they missed the low prices.

If you believed in the fundamentals of bitcoin and its potential for mass adoption at $20k, then I don't see why you shouldn't still believe in it now. If there has been some massive technical failure which I am not aware of, please do let me know.

We recently had a thread voting for new moderators with no outcome: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5025152

And there have been several requests for official reporter statistics in this thread, again with no response:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5058163

I completely agree with your points, but unfortunately they don't seem to be high on theymos' priority list right now.

This mentality is a such a hindrance to crypto in general. I've been called an idiot on this forum for suggesting that perhaps every industry in the world doesn't have a requirement for blockchain by some users who thought that blockchain will revolutionize literally every industry. There are too many people just spewing nonsense like "increase transparency", "increase efficiency" and "decrease corruption", without offering a single technical detail as to how they plan to achieve all these things. "Focus blockchain on pollution control" doesn't even make sense as a sentence I'm afraid, OP. Blockchain is just a ledger, nothing more. You might as well be saying "Let's focus the Excel Spreadsheets on curing cancer".

To answer the wider point, it's never going to happen. We have the technology and the tax money as it is to protect the environment and deal with pollution. Take the US budget for this fiscal year, as an example (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/budget-fy2019.pdf). The Environmental Protection Agency was handed a 34% cut in funding, receiving a total of $5.4 billion. Meanwhile the Department of Defense was handed a 13% increase for a total of a whopping $686 billion, 127 times higher than the EPA. The US spends more on defense then the next 10 countries combined. The US could easily start switching to green energy and cutting emissions massively, if there was the political will for it. There isn't. Politicians are bought by big polluters. If and when we reach a point where crypto is consistently taxed, that tax money will follow party lines, as does all tax money.

I agree there was more at play here, but their defense was atrocious. Look at United's second goal (https://streamable.com/ho7f8 starting around 2 minutes). Arsenal's defending looked like when you press the "call another defender" button in Fifa or PES. 4 of them just running blindly at the ball, doing nothing useful, and Kolasinac ends up passing it straight to Lingard. And yeah, yet again De Gea is the only thing saving United from certain defeat.



Before the start of the season they were title contenders. Within a few weeks that changed to an easy top 4 finish. Now they are looking like they will struggle for a top 6 spot. I think Mou will be sacked when they are inevitably knocked out of the Champion's League.

I don't go out of way to hunt for merited posts like some users, but I will merit anything I come across that I think is deserving. I took heed of theymos' post a few months ago to increase - since I increased my base merit award from 1 to 2, my amount of available sMerit has been steadily decreasing from above 100 to the 50 or so it is at currently. As you say, I don't see the need to start meriting subpar posts just because I've been named and shamed as being "selfish".



I was including source merit in my statement. There are currently 22 users who have given out over 1000 merit, and many more who have give out hundreds. If OP somehow obtained data regarding source merit and edited his list to reflect this, many of these "most generous merit senders" would appear on his list as being selfish.

Looking closer at the list this seems exactly what he has done, completing ignoring airdropped and source sMerit, which seems confirmed by comments like Jet Cash's and LoyceV's which state they have hundreds of sMerits available yet do not appear on the list at all.

Given that this information is private, I'm not sure there is a way to fix OP's list. As I mentioned before, I also don't think it is fair to list merit sources and people who have earned the most merit, who have given out hundreds or even thousands of merits, as being the most "selfish" because they still have a handful of merits still to give.

In summary:

Addresses which start with "1" are P2PKH and are never Segwit.

Addresses which start with "bc1" are Bech32 and are always Segwit.

Addresses which start with "3" are P2SH and may or may not be Segwit. You can't tell for sure until coins from that address have been spent and you check the transaction's scripts.

Creating sub-boards for ban appeals and hacked accounts would certainly help to clear up meta, and it would be easy to then assign a mod to these sub-boards to clear up all these cases. As has been suggested many times before, since theymos seems uninterested in recovering hacked accounts, even ones with signed messages from staked addresses, he could quite easily give a mod this ability and assign them to this theoretical sub-board to deal with all these cases. Similarly, someone with even read-only access to the full mod log could clear up 99% of ban appeals by posting "You plagiarized, case closed", and flag up the remaining 1% of genuine ban appeals to the global mods.

It's been a long time since I've been on coinmarketcap and paid any attention to the rankings of the top 10, but good to see from your screenshot that EOS and BCH are dumping the hardest and slowly falling down the rankings. As much as I hate using marketcap as a statistic to rank coins by, since it can be completely artificial and manipulated, these two scam coins don't belong anywhere near the top 100, let alone the top 10.



The market didn't go down last year. This time last year (5th/6th/7th December) saw the price jump from 11k up to 17k. There was a dip in the couple of days leading up to Christmas day, but the price rallied again going in to January.

The answer to a question like this depends entirely on the timeframe of your outlook and investment.

If you are looking for a get-rich-quick scheme, crypto is not it. You might be lucky to jump on the one random ICO during the next bullrun that happens to go x100 and cash out near the top, but for every person that manages that, there will be thousands more that lose their money on some scam.

If you are day trading, then no, all times are not good to enter. I'm not a trader by any means, but I know enough to know you don't just randomly enter the market at any time you like and hope for the best.

If we are talking about the utility and adoption of bitcoin, then yes, any time is good to enter the market. If you believe, like most people here do, that bitcoin adoption will continue to grow and it will become a worldwide currency, then the price you enter at now will be largely irrelevant in 10/20/30 years' time. If we look at just 5 years ago at 2013 for example - even if you entered at the all time high, you would still be sitting around 200-300% up in 5 years, which is far FAR more than any traditional investment would earn you.

Liverpool's third goal in extra time by Shaqiri was a thing of beauty: https://streamable.com/x5ju4

Allison made a magnificent save, without which the game would likely have ended 2-2. He then kept it in play to deny Burnley a corner, and after he threw it to Sturridge, 4 touches and it was in the back of Burnley's net. Sturridge, Salah and Shaqiri all had beautiful touches. What a great goal.

Compare that goal to the United - Arsenal game, haha. Almost zero fluidity or teamwork on either side, and 4 of the worst goals we've ever seen in the Premier League.

I think you maybe need to rephrase this. There are people on that list like hilariousetc and DdmrDdmr who have given away hundreds of merits, but because they have earned so many they still have lots available to give. You can't really say that people who are on the list of most generous merit givers of all time are also on the list of people who do not give merit.

In addition, merit sources will deplete their source sMerit before their personal sMerit, and so could appear on this list despite giving hundreds of source sMerit.

It's easy to say it can hold "hundreds of different coins and tokens at once" when it is clearly talking about ERC20 or similar tokens. Every hardware wallet can support hundreds of trash tokens at once via MEW or similar.

The Cobo Vault only supports 8 actual coins, and half of them are shitcoins. Worth noting you can easily install all of these 8 coins on a Ledger at once since BTC, BCH, LTC and DASH share a significant amount of code, as do ETH and ETC. I suspect they are being intentionally vague, much likely most of their advertising, because their wallet just isn't that good.

There are entire branches of mathematicas that are theoretically possible but not possible in the "real world", as you put it. Complex and imaginary numbers, for example. You can't show me (2+3i) oranges. It is possible to mathematically guarantee that you will always win with Martingale - all you need is an infinite amount of money. In this case I could ride out any losing streak, even one that is infinitely long, without ever going bust.

Unfortunately for OP, he does not have an infinite amount of money, and so the longer he uses Martingale, the more the probability of him losing everything approaches one.

Oh man. I didn't even realise I got the wooden spoon last week. Not my best work, haha. Climbed back up 2 places from the 4 games today though, so hopefully the rest of this week will continue to bring some more luck for me.

Some ridiculous football today. Shane Duffy headbutts van Aanholt within approximately 12 inches of the ref for an instant red card, and then 10-men Brighton go on to win 3-1 anyway. Palace's defending during Brighton's third goal was utterly shocking. And Cardiff get an early penalty which Fabianski saves, and then they get beaten 3-1 as well. And City only win by one goal instead of their usual 4.

Look forward to Arsenal - United tomorrow. Also wondering how Leicester fans will react to Ranieri.

The 66,000 BTC from the 1Juf address were moved in July last year, in the weeks prior to Segwit activation, so we can't really draw any conclusions from those transfers. You are right with the other funds though - they were moved through several Segwit addresses before finally settling in multiples of 8,000 BTC in several legacy addresses.

Did notice this from a few days ago:


So sounds like they are maybe setting up new cold storage wallets?