I think this fork would be easier said than done. How would blocks be prohibited by location? If partitions are leaky, one side could send blocks from a server located in their enemy's territory. The mining algorithm could be changed, however, this would create demand for chips used in ASICs that would likely be already in short supply due to the war. Changing the mining algorithm would also cause that side's miners to become worthless unless said equipment is used to mine on their enemy's blockchain. One partition could force blocks to be signed with a private key provided by the government, however, a successful hack would render this useless.

This is slightly off-topic, but the bolded sentence provoked a thought. Bitcoin is censorship resistant, and in modest amounts can be anonymous* (*in fact bitcoin is pseudo-anonymous, however, someone can use techniques that can make it nearly impossible to link a transaction to the identity of the person, and there are layer 2 protocols such as LN that will allow someone to transfer money anonymously with limitations and assumptions), so encouraging one side to abandon bitcoin would make it more difficult for the other side to pay for things such as spies or dissidents.

To address your point, I did mention one side potentially whitelisting addresses (UTXO), and that side's miners would only confirm transactions from that side's UTXO set. Or that side could allow fees to be much lower to be included in found blocks from that UTXO set (to hide the fact they are using a whitelist).


42% cannot reliably pull off a long-term 51% attack, however, the 42% I mentioned is only in one part of China where there are/were power issues. I am not familiar with electricity prices in China, however, I would expect there to be miners in other parts of China to be sufficient to pull off a 51% attack. The actual percentage of miners may have been greater than 42% as miners are (presumably) being delivered to customers every day.

I have doubts the drop in mining capacity was due to pool outages. I am not aware of any pools outright going offline. Pools make their money from fees associated with finding blocks, so I believe it is safe to assume that all pools have failover servers located in diverse locations. It is also expensive to send data to China, so I would think miners would tend to avoid having their miners connecting to a pool server located in China from outside of China.


I don't think a nuclear war would last very long. A WW3 involving nuclear weapons being successfully deployed would probably be over within hours if that long. It is possible that missile defense systems would render nuclear missiles useless, and that submarine dragnets would make launching from a submarine or warship unfeasible. As in WW2, I think once one side is able to successfully launch a nuclear weapon against the other side, the war will end shortly thereafter; idk if this means going back to the stone age, or if one side is able to survive with fairly nominal damage.

I am not quite sure what this is about. Elon Musk has said he intends to hold all the bitcoin Tesla owns/receives.
Investors, in normal times, will only care about future cash flows. This means investors will only care about ongoing profits. Any profits from the sale of coin is not going to be "ongoing" but will rather be "one time" profits. Unless Tesla is fighting for its survival, profits from speculative investments such as bitcoin will not factor into Tesla's potential long term value, other than the current value of it's assets.

While that blog site may not be credible, I would not necessarily trust Protonmail if you have something to hide, such as being a dissident in an oppressive country. You can use Protonmail, but you should not rely on it to guarantee your privacy. Many oppressive countries have extensive hacking programs, and there is always the risk that there is a vulnerability, or that one of their engineers gets compromised.

I am not going to recommend a specific security setup for dissidents, however, it should probably involve using PGP encryption for every message sent/received, along with the use of a Web of Trust.

If you want to change your email address associated with your account, you need to enter your password. The OP stated that he has misplaced the paper that has his password.

If you are sending them coin in advance, you are giving them custody of your coin before they open a LN channel. This is true regardless of if they open a channel with a fee of 1 sat/vByte, or 10000 sat/vByte. I assume they are taking the fee out of your channel balance, so it will be beneficial for you to have the fee they pay on the funding transaction be lower.

I think in the future, it would be more common for channels to be funded via both parties sending coin in the same transaction.

Are you able to sign a message from a bitcoin address you have posted previously? If so, you should follow the instructions in the thread about recovering hacked or lost accounts.

You should make note that you have access to a session cookie, and that you don't want to get logged out while waiting for your email to be reset.

When someone is being charged with a crime, such as identity theft or perjury, it is up to the prosecution to prove the person is either stealing someone's identity or lied under oath.

The original question was: What crimes do you think CSW has committed? In order for Wright to have any influence, or assert any rights for being satoshi, he will need to in fact prove that he is satoshi. However, if a government were to charge him with a crime for falsely claiming to be satoshi, the prosecution will need to prove that Wright is in fact not satoshi.

I get that CSW is not very popular in this forum, and I have a very low opinion of him myself. However being unpopular does not mean you should not have your due process rights.

If I am understanding correctly, you sent coin to ACINQ, and upon this transaction confirming, they opened a LN channel with you that involves you having outbound capacity in the amount of the coin you sent (less any fees they are charging you), and possibly some inbound capacity for you.

If this is true, there is no risk to ACINQ because your "deposit" has already confirmed. Allowing a LN transaction to be processed when the opening transaction is unconfirmed is opening up risk to the counterparty to the channel only, and no one else in the LN network. This is probably a setting that should be set to "disable" by default though.

You have made 16 posts. If you want to change your display name, I would recommend that you create a new account. In order to have permissions to change your display name, you need to be a VIP account, and in order to get a VIP account, you need to donate 50BTC, or about $2.6 million at current prices (when this was first offered the price of bitcoin was much lower). Sometimes the forum administration will change your display name at the request of a forum member if they have a compelling reason. I believe that in the past, compelling reasons would include being potentially doxed based on your current display name, being a prominent forum member, making substantial contributions to the community, and similar.

While I don't believe CSW is not satoshi (in fact I believe CSW is not satoshi), I cannot prove this to be true. The absence of proof that a statement is true is not evidence the statement is false. Similarly, attempts to fraudulently prove a statement to be true is not evidence the statement is false, although it may be evidence the person presenting the fraudulent evidence should not be trusted.

The above distinction is important because, in order to convict someone of lying under oath, the prosecution needs to prove the statement is false. There isn't anyone else claiming to be satoshi, not even satohsi Nakamoto himself. The same principle applies to identity theft. I think it is plausible that Dave Kleiman is satoshi, that CSW knows this and that no one will ever be able to prove they CSW is not satoshi, however, it is also possible that the litigation between Kleiman's estate and Wright was an effort to give credence to Wright being satoshi (I did not follow the litigation closely, nor am I aware of its outcome).

I have long suspected that satoshi no longer has access to his cryptic keys, either because he is dead, in jail, or for whatever reason lost access to his keys. I think if satoshi did have access to his keys, and is not CSW, he would have presented a signed message saying that Wright is not satoshi by now.

If Wright were to actually prove he is satoshi in court in his case against you, he should be able to easily enforce any rights associated with being satoshi has (I am hesitant to believe satoshi has many rights -- see my below comment). However, if for example, Wright were to win a default judgment against you, and the court were to rule that he is in fact satoshi, he would not be able to enforce any associated rights (if this were the case, he could simply sue someone friendly to him in order to have a court rule in his favor). I think BSV has insane technical specifications, but I also think CSW probably also owns an outsized number of BSV coin via being a major miner of that coin. CSW probably doesn't own the same number of BSV coin that satoshi mined of bitcoin, but he probably has a lot of BSV. I think if CSW were to win a case against a major bitcoin figure, the price of BSV would increase a lot. I have commented before as to why CSW might win a case, and it is not because of actual merit.

In the very unlikely event that Wright was able to legitimately prove he is in fact satoshi, he very clearly should not have any rights over the bitcoin software, or the bitcoin database/ledger (commonly known as the blockchain), as satoshi's very first commit of the bitcoin software code explicitly said it was distributed under an MIT license. The whitepaper was appearently included in the original code files, but it is less explicit that the whitepaper was published under the MIT license.

I agree that crypto.com has the appearance of being especially shady. They apparently also have an exchange and claim to have fairly decent volume. They are offering very shady bonuses, but if you read the fine print, the bonuses are actually trading fee discounts. I am not sure if the volumes are fake, but I would be hesitant to deposit coin on their exchange.

In order to defend his position in court, Cøbra would need to disclose his identity, at least this is normally the case. Cøbra says that he may be able to "appear" in court without disclosing his IRL identity.

There are plenty of reasons to believe that CSW is not satoshi. My understanding is that CSW has plenty of money, is well-credentialed, and probably would be able to support a fairly lavish lifestyle with his current assets. Obviously, any ruling by a court saying that CSW is satoshi doesn't make that statement true, although it would make it important to make it clear that you are stating an opinion when saying that CSW is not satoshi. A ruling that CSW is satoshi would not even mean there is actually evidence to support this statement, it would most probably mean that a judge was confused or was not paying close attention to the evidence and testimony.

What crimes do you think CSW has committed? Making accusations in court is typically protected speech, as long as the person does not lie while under oath. Lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits can be subject to sanctions, but this will not affect the client. I don't follow CSW's story very closely, but I have followed it closely enough to conclude that I believe he is not satoshi. I also read some of the testimony he gave a few years back, and it sounds like he is very good at playing with words in a way that will confuse people.

I am not familiar with UK copyright law, but I am surprised the court would even recognize as having jurisdiction over the matter if bitcoin.org does not have a registered agent in the UK.

My suspicion is that the purpose of all these lawsuits is not necessarily to obtain money from the people he is suing, but rather to get a judge to rule that he is in fact satoshi (see my above comment about CWS being good at confusing people by playing with words).

Is he actually asking for help? My understanding is that cobra has been involved in bitcoin for a long time, and I would presume that to mean he has a lot of financial resources.

I don't think that address he posted on twitter is intended for donations, but rather to allow someone to verify his identity cryptographically. I wouldn't send any donations unless he is asking for help.

Crypto.com offering a "deposit service" in which customers can deposit coin and earn interest. Huobi has what appears to be a peer-to-peer collateralized lending platform. If the OP is correct about his address belonging to crypto.com, it is possible they are using some of their deposits to fund loans on Huobi's platform.

That is not quite right. There is voting in China Russia, and even in North Korea. Elections in these countries are obviously not free and fair elections.

DashingAgent is explicitly asking for donations in his signature, while the example you cited merely lists an address. I would not consider the two to be the same.

I think asking for donations in a signature should be acceptable. Asking for a donation in a signature is essentially the same as trying to get people to support your cause in your signature, and I would say the two are very similar.

GOODCASH on the other hand is engaging in asking for donations in his post, and I don't think this should be allowed. The majority of the post is not asking for donations, and I would describe his asking for donations to be a "signature" that is not in the signature area, and this is not allowed. I might argue an exception should be made if a lot of effort or ongoing effort is put into a post or thread, such as the rank up pipeline thread, but that is not the case for GOODCASH's thread.

I was asking specifically about the ability to use SES, and although not mentioned, those with high sending limits. I did some research and it appears that KYC is not required to move out of the AWS SES sandbox.

I would opine that the selling of SES accounts should be prohibited by the forum due to the limited number of "good" use cases for a buyer of an SES account. Nearly all use cases of buying an SES account are to send SPAM and/or emails intending on stealing money (or otherwise causing harm) from (to) the recipient.

I have not tagged any sellers of AWS accounts, nor have I opinioned on the policy of the OP (I am still considering the merits of the policy).

Binance does not pay their interest out of their trading fees. All bitcoin-related companies that pay interest on "deposits", will lend out the coin that is deposited to other customers at a higher rate than the deposit holders receive, and the "bank" will keep the difference between interest received, interest paid, and loan losses. This is true for Binance, and is true for celsius. I am not familiar with crypto.com, but if they are a legitimate business, this is what they do too.

Posting as a thought experiment...

I think it would be more likely there would be internment "blackouts" of communications between the "partitions" rather than communication being permanently disrupted. I would also argue that information would flow between China and Russia, and between the US and the EU, although both sides may try to interrupt communication between the other side. In the event of "blackouts" that last several hours at a time, there will be reorgs dozens of blocks deep, and whichever side has the greater total of (hashrate * "luck" during the blackout) will have their version of the blockchain be built upon by the entire network. if the "blackout" is longer, the reorg will be deeper. If some information can be smuggled across the partitions (but not sufficient information that can be transmitted quickly enough for nodes to sync), one side could spend coin on both blockchains, causing economic harm to the other side.

Being that, based on the hashrate drop immediately after rolling electric blackouts in one region of China, there is likely at least ~42% of the total network hashrate located in China. This means in the event of WW3, the Chinese government could potentially seize the miners located in their country and use them to harm the other side via something resembling a 51% attack. This may not involve double spending on a mass scale, but it may involve preventing transactions to/from companies based on the other side from being confirmed. Or they could have companies based in their country (and their citizens) provide a list of deposit addresses belonging to their company, and transactions not involving these addresses could have difficulty confirming.

If there was a long-term near-blackout in which communication was cutoff for the duration of the war, I think some coin would probably get spent multiple times via information smuggling on a small scale. If there is a clear winner in a WW3, I think whichever side wins the war would have their version of the blockchain be the "valid" blockchain for the rest of the world. This is not a technical argument, this is just how wars work -- whoever wins the war, gets to write the history books.

---

I think in the event of a WW3, bitcoin and cryptocurrencies will probably not fare very well. Electricity could become scarce, which may cause average block times to fluctuate widely, and both sides of a WW3 would probably try to pull off something similar to a 51% discussed above. Both sides may try to take out internet (communications) and/or power infrastructure in areas known to have concentrations of mining farms, harming the other side's economy. Using cryptocurrency could be frowned upon out of fear that transactions are helping the other side economically.

I also believe globalization has reduced the risk of another World War involving militaries fighting each other "in person". There are too many countries that rely very heavily on a large network of other countries to keep their economies running, and this network of countries includes countries that are likely to be on opposing sides in any WW3.