Very probably. Public information is public.

If you have an address that's linked to various "markets" (if I know what you mean), why on Earth would you ever put it in your public profile? Bitcoin isn't anonymous, you know. Don't be surprised if you have LEOs knocking on your door soon.

However much they're paying you, it's too much.

The best method to invest is to focus on industries you understand so that you may use your knowledge to spot the opportunities for profit that others don't. If you're "new in this world of cryptocurrency", you probably shouldn't invest in it just yet.

The best (indeed, only) method to have insured earnings is to get a job and buy income protection insurance. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

I'd hardly call infighting a "war", but mister "trio is an adjective" babadook ought to be shot for insubordination.

Unconfirmed transactions aren't on the blockchain. Any transaction that is on the blockchain has at least one confirmation. That's what confirmation means.

This is such a fundamental concept that I'd stay away from any payment provider that doesn't understand it.

Because no gay person has ever killed themselves because they were ashamed of their desires or what other people think of them or had been brought up to believe that such desires are "wrong". That absolutely never happens and is not a serious issue. </sarcasm>

You've been doing a poor job of it, it must be said.

"...unless they're lesbians." - Leviticus 18:22½

Including you? Are you trying to tell us something?

Sadly, this is true.

Zero chance, unless he goes completely off the rails like dank did.

What do you mean "lately"? He's a certified grade-A kook.

What kind of activity? Making prank videos to fool gullible people such as yourself? Yeah, it's pretty widespread. It's part of joint effort between the Freemasons and the Bavarian Illuminati to distract conspiracy theorists from what they're really up to. This tactic has proven quite successful so far.

Also, my sources inform me that your veggie dog problem is unrelated. The Freemasons deny all involvement and the Illuminati are still annoyed that they didn't think of it first.

Yes, it's absurd. That's what I just said using different words.

I don't think that. I was pointing out that simulated quantum computing is a real thing (contrary to your claim that it's impossible), and that it doesn't do what Vitalik says it does at all. I thought I was clear in my post exactly what it is and isn't a viable approach for.

Short answer: Very slowly. Long answer: Since the wave function of a quantum system is really just an ordinary mathematical function, it can be calculated by traditional methods. This is very useful for designing quantum computers and algorithms, but not useful at all for actually solving quantum-computable problems, due to the aforementioned slowness, which gets exponentially worse the more complex the simulated system is.

It's a pity God didn't tell you to take lessons in English grammar first.

That's cheating. He said using only the number 4, not the numeral 4. Here's what I came up with:

((4/4) + (4/4) + (4/4) + 4 + 4(4+4)) x 4 x 4 x (4+4) + 4 + 4 =
(1 + 1 + 1 + 4 + 4(8)) x 16 x 8 + 8 =
(7 + 32) x 128 + 8 =
39 x 128 + 8 =
4992 + 8 =
5000

Really? Ten percent? You reckon there may be as many as five quality posts in his history? I think your standards are dropping.

I count exactly zero and would have ignored him already if he had posted anywhere I actually care enough to read. (I don't ignore people based on their signatures, yet nearly everyone I do ignore has or eventually obtains a paid sig. Isn't that interesting?)

No.

It's only available when using coin control and you've already selected your inputs. Otherwise how can you even know what a good total fee is?

Alright, rule number one of dressing sexy: expose the parts of your body that are sexy, cover the parts of your body that you want people to think are sexy. The latter part is why lingerie is sexier than nudity, and why unattractive people are less so the more they wear. Large women can look sexy, but not by wearing a bikini!

I don't understand this "every body is a bikini body" thing. It's a complete falsehood. There is a certain body type that looks good in a bikini. Other body types look good in other types of swimwear. You do your body (and everyone seeing it) a disservice when you try to wear the wrong thing because you feel you have to.

I think you're the one who needs to look it up. Argumentum ad hominem is fallacious only inasmuch as the personal attack is irrelevant to the argument in question, that is, it is a logical non sequitur. But the argument that "scammers are not to be trusted, you are a scammer, therefore you are not to be trusted" is perfectly valid logic, so if you want to refute it, you'll have to disprove the premises.

No. It was a wonderful time of joy and innocence, with ignore lists populated by kooks and trolls instead of spammers. Oh, how I yearn for those days.

I hope not. That would mean the future's even worse!