Block wars and the lightning network weren't a thing 9 years ago, so at some point this story doesn't make sense. The former began in mid 2015 and lightning in 2017. As for "Satoshi's vision" being "unlimited block size" or theymos colluding with blockstream to censor discussions, just LOL.  

Anyway, so the tl;dr is that there was a whale with weak hands. Not surprising given the time this happened. Try finding that now.

I mean, totally false. It surely matters. Full nodes verifying the integrity of the blockchain is what's Bitcoin all about. Their incapability to change the blockchain (in terms of orders of transactions, as with miners) is irrelevant. The whole point is full nodes verifying the difficultywise-longest chain produced by honest nodes, without trusting third parties. An eclipse attack is pretty much trying to forbid you from figuring out there's a more-worked chain to verify.

Miners are immune to that kind. People who merely want to verify their transactions are not.

Private keys shouldn't be stored anywhere. Seed phrases should.

How on Earth can MetaMask help you spot scams and malicious sites? Last time I checked, it was nothing but another closed-source, browser-based multi-shitcoin wallet software. It pretty much can't even protect you from itself.

The rest is utter gibberish. What has happened with this board last year? It's almost sad to see content quality dropping so low.

I presume the reason it exists in lightning, is that the 1 satoshi must be cut in several pieces, because nodes charging 0 sat base fee are attractive, and need to find an income elsewhere (i.e., variable fee). Transaction fees can sometimes be even 1 satoshi, so it's reasonable to have more flexibility with units.

Which is my point. BTC-without-tail-supply, which is the current currency, cannot be inflated in a no-fork way.

Because that would probably break a lot of software, and either implemented via softfork or hardfork, there will be bad consequences. Turn your question the other way around: why should there be infinite digits? Clearly, 1 sat is of little value, and it will probably be of little value in a couple of decades as well. Even if 1 BTC = $1M, 1 sat is still only worth $0.01.

How could they do that?

Sounds like you're parroting information. The concern with quantum computers comes by solving the ECDLP in a polynomial time, which in theory can be done using Shor's algorithm and a functional quantum computer. The quantum resistant cryptographic primitives you mentioned do not apply to a broken SHA256, but to secp256k1.

It could only be initiated by the users. The people who write the wallet software cannot just move other people's coins without a valid signature.

---

Now tell me. To which LLM did I respond?

There is nothing in isafepal dot com. There might be in the future, but there isn't now. They also said they used an AI to write this up, so it could just be a mistake.

Why should they run a completely new program when there are two well tested already? But, besides that. Judging by the lack of technical competence, it's ignorant to think they are capable of doing this correctly. Recalling that their approach was more akin to a DoS attack than a brute force attempt on their seed phrase.

This is good, but it shouldn't be considered equivalent to Tor. If Bitcoin is "banned" or whatever-- forbidden in general in your country, then you should absolutely not choose that over Tor. Just because the ISP cannot see the content you're sending over, it doesn't mean it can't figure out which IP addresses belong to Bitcoin nodes and make out you're running Bitcoin. This is trivial to do by recursively finding all reachable bitcoin nodes with getaddr.

This is extremely bad idea. I just read brute_force_seed. Why are you even POST-ing a request with safepal, submitting your seed phrase (!!!) to them? This is not secure. Also, why isn't there indentation in your python code?

Please use either FinderOuter which comes with a friendly user interface, or btcrecover. Open-source means that every problem has to only be solved once.

Tips when using wallet software:

• Don't use it if it's closed-source.
• Don't use it it's exclusively available in mobile OSes.
• Don't use it if it provides no additional benefit to past software.

That is a reason to not trust custodial wallets which portray themselves as non-custodial. Mixin, Mixin safe, or whatever it was called, was not as much trustless / decentralized / non-custodial as they marketed.

The:

• private key is used to create signatures.
• public key is used to verify signatures.

I presume you're talking about the latter.

That is correct. When you make a transaction, you most likely share a signature and a public key for nodes to verify it. ("most likely", because you can spend bitcoin without using private keys, public keys and signatures, such as these)

The AI poses no threat to breaking Bitcoin's cryptography.

You cannot "bypass" a network rule. Your transaction either agrees with the rules, or it doesn't. If it's the latter, then the full nodes (which are literally what we call "Bitcoin network") will reject it. If you want to validate something that is invalid, then your only option is to fork the client and enforce your rules.

How is the block reward relevant with the frequency of invalid blocks?

There is no doubt. They do not belong to the Bitcoin blockchain.

To which major error are you referring to?

Is there any particular reason they do that? My guess is that by sorting the transaction array, it makes it trivial to make out which transactions aren't worth as much as new incoming transactions.

I'd argue that a large group of users defeating the purpose of p2p cash does harm to the entire network, as a whole, besides weakening their own security. Take a look on merchants that use BitPay or Coinbase as their payment processors. They clearly do harm to themselves, but that particular practice discourages their clients to paying in bitcoin. (In case you didn't know it, both implement KYC and treat the currency as non-fungible)

Ultimately, I think we're approaching greater decentralization as times goes by. People who forfeit their custody don't last long in bitcoin. We now have high-volume, peer-to-peer, decentralized exchanges that act as superior alternative to people who merely want to buy and sell bitcoin.

I'm genuinely curious how frustrating that really is. When I haven't paid the monthly or annual plan of a service, I get notified by email long before the expiration date. There are couple of warning messages, like that my subscription plan needs repayment, or that if I don't pay until October 12th, the service will no longer work etc.

Subscription payments can be automated from your wallet software. I think the fact that nobody does that demonstrates that it is nearly useless.

I honestly don't mind about subscription payments. What's so uncomfortable with getting notified that you need to repay the service every once in a while?

Locktime is a field in every transaction which is the minimum block height or date that needs to be fulfilled for the transaction to be valid. In Electrum, you can try it out in testnet. Choose an address to send tBTC, click "Send", then "Advanced", then right up there there is "LockTime". Try setting it to a couple of minutes (or blocks) into the future. You will notice that you will be incapable of broadcasting that transaction before that.

LoyceV has written a well guide for setting up inheritance planning with locktime: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5180850.0

Notes:

- Copying the deposit address doesn't work in Tor (it copies "undefined" string).
- You should clarify the free mixing it actually free, because I hit "Try now for free" and it showed a fee calculator which somewhat contradicts.

Checked the anonymity set of my coin from my blockchain explorer, and it seems pretty high. Pretty neat mixer.

Maybe they are trying to warn them that they cannot handle it financially.  

Jokes asides, Bitcoin trading is for newbies. Experienced people know it's utter bullshit.

Just notice who's commercialized it. Exchanges and broker firms. Literally in every YouTube channel of a millionaire-guru-claimed trader, there is a referral link. It's a genius hierarchical-based marketing move, which begins from centralized exchanges, flowing into those who're under the impression they're masters of some shit (AKA, gurus), and it ends up to newbies who have absolutely nothing to do with that.

I don't say that trading is fundamentally a scam. I'm referring solely to retail trading, which not surprisingly came up with the rise of centralized exchanges, as if suddenly laymen knew how to predict the future.

If you don't know your coins' history, you don't know that either.

In my opinion, it doesn't. I don't care if your friend has ethical concerns with the coins they receive, or if they want to sabotage Bitcoin. The result is the same. In either case, they treat the currency as non-fungible, which ultimately does the same harm.

Lol. Since when do we request this sort of information? It's the first time I've ever heard this as a need. Not caring about the history of my coins has worked fine so far.

I must have received plenty of bitcoin which were involved in some illegal activity. I share no concern, just as I share none with the cash I spend everyday. The public availability and interconnectedness of transactions does not imply that I am correlated with the financial history of my coins.

The intentions really don't matter. If you don't treat bitcoin as fungible currency that it is, you're doing equal harm, regardless of intentions.

Treating every mixed coin as "tainted" merely based on the certainty that some of them might have originated from illegal activities does not qualify as a reasonably established practice. It's simply put, insane. You wouldn't treat a $10 bill as tainted if there was 50% chance it was used illegally. Every dollar bill is potentially used illegally, just as every mixed bitcoin.

But, more than that are claimed to be "tainted". Every single coin which passes a mixer or is coinjoined is deemed as tainted, because a fraction of the input is involved in illegal activity. You can't seriously argue that mixed coins being reasonably called tainted is based on facts, because it is half insane and half guesswork.

Sites that describe almost every basic technical aspect:
- https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook (by Andreas Antonopoulos)
- https://learnmeabitcoin.com/

If you like watching videos, then the YouTube channel of learnmeabitcoin.com is worth a view: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCj9MFr-7a02d_qe4xVnZ1sA/videos

For questions and answers:
- https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/
- this place.