It tells you what columns are provided:

My guess is they are offering their 2020 data for free so people will subscribe to their $60,000/year subscription that appears to go back further. One of their other $60k/year datasets contains more information about each column.

The IRS can trivially review tax return data along with the data received from the various exchanges to get a good idea as to if income was properly reported and if not how much income was not reported. They have no reason to go after 50 million people when 99%+ of these people properly reported their income.

The number of trades is less important than the value of the transactions/trades.

It would probably be better if any implementation of my proposal would only apply to transactions sent after a cutoff date.

It could that effective block number x, transactions can be sent to addressed starting with bc2 that are "balanced based" addresses, and that after block number x plus n, no transaction will be valid until all outputs are sent to a "bc2" address that keeps track of address/key balances.

If you have 10 inputs in a transaction, all 10 inputs will need to be in the transaction, even if they are all from the same key. If each address had a balance instead of unspent outputs, a transaction with 10 inputs could be potentially reduced to a single input with a nonce and an amount (and a signature).

There is an argument to change from signing individual UTXOs, someone spending coin would need to sign an address plus a nonce. This would encourage address reuse, which reduces privacy, and would make CPFP more complex, but would increase transaction throughput. It would also eliminate change addresses, which would also reduce privacy. It would be required that nonces are confirmed in order, but two nonces could be confirmed in the same block.

The topic of "consolidating inputs" has come up often in this thread, and the above would largely eliminate the need for that.

I would not use a passphrase that is not written down. Doing so would result in you not actually having a complete backup of your seed, and you would be risking the loss of funds if you forget your passphrase.

If you split up your seed in three safety deposit boxes, each could have every 3rd word of your seed, and you could have one decoy seed with some coin in it that is "in order" the words contained in each box.

So your real seed would be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Your seed would be stored as follows:

Box    1.  2.  3.
Word. 1.  2.  3.
          4.  5.  6.
          7.  8.  9. 

However, you would also have some "decoy" coin in the following seed: 1 4 7 2 5 8 3 6 9

If the government wants to get your seed, they have guns and can put you in jail under certain circumstances. When thinking about how to best protect your seed from the government, I would refer you to a $5 wrench attack

With a target profit of 1.25%, the EV of the trade is closer to +0.625% of the trade amount. This is based on 4 trades gaining a cumulative 5%.

I might be missing something though. If you are gaining 5% of 30% of your bankroll when you have a profitable trade (4 times), but lose 30% of your bankroll when you have a losing trade, the loss is not 30%, it is 100% of the trade amount. This would be unlikely unless you are using leverage. Or it might be possible if the trade amount is greater than the "max risk" amount. In either case, gaining 5% of 30% of your bankroll over 4 trades (1.25% per trade), and losing 30% of your bankroll on losing trades would have an EV of -0.775% per trade based on a 98% success rate.

IMO, the stop threshold is too high. If you are trying to make a bunch of 1% gains, you should not be willing to lose 30% of your bankroll waiting for a trade to be profitable. There is the -EV issue noted above, but also, if you had cut your losses at a lower threshold, you could use the proceeds from that trade to make other, profitable trades.

If your trades had an EV of +0.00%, you would break even if you had exactly "average" luck, and you should expect this to happen exactly 50% of the time. If you have small +EV trades, your profitability will rely heavily on your early "luck" if trades are made as a percentage of your bankroll. This is true if trades are successful 98% of the time, or 2% of the time. You can still remain profitable, even if your "luck" is "below average", which means you will be profitable most of the time. The higher the +EV each trade is, the worse "luck" you can have and still remain profitable.

A trade with a 98% success rate, when success is defined as a 5% gain, failure is defined as a 30% loss will be +EV.

The EV of a trade is as follows:
98%(SUCCESS_RATE) of 5% (SUCCESS_PROFIT) = 4.9%
2% (FAILURE_RATE) of 30% (FAILURE_LOSS) = -0.6%
total EV of trade: 4.3%

Based on the charts you have posted over the course of this experiment, I don't think the bot has a 98% success rate.

If the FAILURE_LOSS is 6 times the SUCCESS_PROFIT, the SUCCESS_RATE needs to be at least 6x the FAILURE_RATE. The markets are not random, so the bot will have to look at some metric(s) to predict when it is more likely for the price of the coin being traded to go up by SUCCESS_PROFIT before it goes down by FAILURE_LOSS.

USAF SegWit is not the same as SegWit. The former is a "forced" change, while the later is a change that was achieved via consensus. It is totally reasonable for the devs to advocate for Taproot to be activate, expected actually. For them to advocate for Taproot to activate without clear consensus is another story.

I don't think taproot is needed for this.

In order to mix your coin, you will need two channels, one with outbound capacity, and one with inbound capacity in the same amount. Once you have the two channels open, you simply make a LN payment from one node to the other. You can increase your privacy by sending multiple payments from one node to the other over time. Privacy will also be increased as more users use the LN network for more transactions. Privacy can be increased by having both nodes have multiple channels open, by not transferring the entire balance in the channel, and by waiting an amount of time before closing the channels.

As I mentioned before, theymos manually changes the price of Copper memberships so that it has a fairly consistent cost in USD.
IIRC from reading old threads, the cost of a VIP membership was approximately the cost of one month's hosting. The forum's hosting costs have subsequently grown, but not as much as the price of bitcoin.

There may be an argument to periodically change the cost of a VIP account to be in line with x number of months worth of hosting. This would probably lower the cost to be several thousand dollars, but would not be anywhere near the millions of dollars it costs currently.

Username:Primenumber7
Post Count: 2229
BTC Address (must be SegWit):bc1qaer2xg4kl4yu2nyj0ejt48x9kkutzyzk7n26h7

The tee-shirt shows bias on the part of the junior. This means the trial will likely be thrown out by the appellate courts. The trial judge was not exactly courageous in making rulings consistent with the law during the trial that may have been unpopular.

You are correct, the trial is over, however losing parties have the right to appeal negative court outcomes, and Chauvin is appealing on the basis of the junior being biased and on the basis of the junior lying on his junior questionnaire (among other issues).

My expectation is that Chauvin's guilty verdict is eventually overturned.

I believe a VIP membership cost around $50 or so when it was originally made available. To make the cost consistent in dollar terms, the price would need to be well below 0.1 BTC ($5,900).

Theymos has said in the past, that he does not intend to lower the cost of VIP and donator accounts. This means for all intents and purposes, no one else will ever purchase a VIP or donator account from the forum. Theymos has said that he may create additional paid memberships in the future. The Copper Membership account costs about $35, and the cost is periodically adjusted for the price of bitcoin.

Maybe a new paid membership that costs a few hundred dollars will allow users to change their forum handle every so often.

I think it is a valid concern. Some vaccines do contain parts of the virus they are protecting against, although this is not the case for the covid vaccines.

If you get the covid vaccine, the chances of you spreading covid to someone else is very low, far lower than if you did not get the vaccine. The ways you can potentially spread covid to someone else if you are fully vaccinated are:
*the vaccine is not effective against protecting you against covid, you catch covid and spread it to someone else. This scenario is basically the same as if you did not receive the vaccine
*someone with covid spits in your mouth (or otherwise transmits particles into your respiratory system), and you subsequently cough into someone else's mouth, and the specific particles from the other person go into the 3rd party's mouth/respiratory system. The probability of this happening is very low, and the vaccine will lower the chances that you actually spread the virus in this scenario.

There were over 2,000 police officers injured during the BLM terrorist attacks over the summer. Also the number of officers injured on Jan 6 included injuries such as minor bruises that are not serious.
The “private” offices of congress are actually open to the public. You quite literally need to open the door. There is a sign in book outside the door, but actually signing the book is not enforced.  
That image is of well outside the capital. A small number of people breached the capital building (not the outside parameter) and the rest were waived in by capital police.

If the capital was open, it basically would have been like the Kavanaugh hearings, except the protesters would be protesting something legitimate.

The IRS will likely send similar letters to Kraken customers, and Binance customers if a similar order is granted against Binance.

My advice to anyone who hasn’t been reporting all their bitcoin/crypto related income would be to file amended returns ASAP. IIRC, some of the letters allowed taxpayers to file amended returns, however there is no guarantee the IRS won’t simply audit taxpayers who appear to have not reported all their income.
There is no crypto tax law. I believe in 2014, the IRS issued guidance that they expect taxpayers to treat bitcoin as property, and that you must treat any capital gains on bitcoin as capital gains on your taxes.

For example if you receive $100 worth of bitcoin on March 1 as a payment for a service, you would report this as $100 worth of income. If you were to subsequently use that bitcoin to buy $120 worth of goods, you would report $20 in capital gains the year you sell/barter the coin.

Everyone’s situation is different, so it is always best to consult with a tax professional to discuss your specific situation.

The junior wearing the "get your knee of our necks" shirt is prima facie evidence that he had a predisposed opinion on the defendant's guilt.

I don't think many Republicans are comfortable giving their honest opinion on the matter.

My reading on this attack makes me believe that an SSLstrip attack would not work against the setup I am proposing.

The connection between your public WiFi laptop and your home computer would be initiated via SSL, and if the information being relayed back from your home computer to your public WiFi laptop is not returned via SSL, you will know there is a problem and that you may be the subject of a MITM attack. A SSLstrip attack needs both of the above to not be true.

Detecting a MTIM attack is just as good as preventing it because you will know not to trust anything you receive via the internet.

It is possible to place a "market" order. For an amount as small of 0.1 BTC on an exchange such as coinbase pro, a market order is probably your best solution.

If you were to enter into a market order to sell 0.1 BTC, or if you were to enter into a limit order at a price at or below 55000 for 0.1 BTC,  in your example, your order would execute at 55000, and you would receive 5500 less trading fees charged based on your previous trading activity. If you were to sell this same 0.1 BTC on the coinbase exchange, you would receive 5500 less the fees and commissions charged by the coinbase platform. In both cases, your order would be matched against the existing order.