That's the problem I'm trying to point out. The user can't just study the market well, because they can't reach everything. There's private data that is inaccessible, and owned by the few big folks who do the manipulation. Unless you don't think that info is very important for the user (and neglecting it would make the study "well") then they can never be confident they've studied properly.

By the way, I'm assuming the user can perfectly filter public information, which is also not true. "Filtering" is subjective, because different users will prioritize different parameters that affect the price.

This argument holds as much water as the S2F, or the one which says we will have bull markets every 4 years. There's no evidence other than "look in the chart, it will probably repeat".

Because this is how progress is made; by pushing it to the limit. Attempting to break ECC, should be embraced, not criticized. How do you think you can test that a laminated glass is safe? You throw stuff on it, and make your observations. Should that glass be used on that model, why etc. You should definitely push it to the limit, until you feel confident it's safe.

As far as I've experienced, security which relies on mathematics and cryptography is an ongoing process, which can only be preserved if we're constantly trying to question it. Just imagine what would happen if it broke privately, and nobody, but those few, knew nothing.

I don't think it's going to become the norm. Sure, governments and regulators will try to invade into Bitcoin users' privacy as much as possible, but genuine users don't buy that, and usually, it's genuine users who want privacy. Look on what happened with Wasabi. They've lost countless of clients. Nobody bought it. Even the contributors themselves were caught to trying and pretending they're okay with it, as they have a financial incentive to protect. They were neither convincing. It makes a splash, even to the most dumb head in the world, that a fungibility-preserving software can't just treat the currency as non-fungible and cooperate with a company that strives to harm that fungibility as much as possible.

I didn't know Thormixer, but the last thing I'd care about is their pro-taint policy. Lol, just read the thread, the guy is an inexperienced scum, and he'd be the last person on this forum to whom I'd trust my funds to.

Look, in all that horseshit you've been writing and repeating years now, I think I'll have to admit that part of your message is true. I'm going to speak for myself, maybe I'm the problem, but I'm not following anything beyond Core's work. I don't find the time, nor do I want, to check what other cryptocurrency groups / bitcoin forks' developers are suggesting. Maybe it's due to the fact that I'm a little biased that their goal isn't long-term, or that they're consisted of less experienced people. (For instance, I haven't read a BCash proposal besides their block size increase, for like... ever)

Or maybe it's just the intentions that discourage me. For example, I can't buy the whole BSV thing, even if they do say some things that aren't that flawed and debunked, simply because their development team is owned by a pathetic liar (and thus cannot be trusted). One thing that I also like about the Bitcoin Core team, is that for every change that happens, there is an either pull request with controversial discussion, or some StackExchange post that gives the reasoning behind it.

Would "not potentially useful" instead of "useless" make this less ironic?

I'm not denying the fact that there's a market around it. I'm just arguing they're of zero value. Sure, they have a price, but I just cannot recognize the slightest value, and I will attempt to impose this reasoning to anyone who's found to be confused until someone convinces me otherwise. 

I cannot buy something that I don't buy in the first place. 

Sure, but don't you make it, in the very least, more secure if you exclude numbers like 1, 10, 888, 2^256 / 2 etc.? There's astronomically small chance of being selected, but there's an unnecessary chance. Unless there's a reason we shouldn't exclude that subset, which probably lies on the "how to" situation.

So, the answer to why we shouldn't exclude that insecure subset, is that we're likely to make less secure the rest of the numbers of the set. It makes some sense, yes.

That means that a software should not mark 888 as a good choice, because while random, it is not secure. So there exists a subset of numbers that are not secure but are random. Is it wrong to think that if we excluded that subset, we'd have better security? Seems to me like the problem lies how to do it, and not on if it's wise to do it.

I think that a wiser approach to acknowledging potential in bitcoin, is to take advantage of the disadvantages of the banking sector, rather than to replace it, as you make it sound like. Governed by corrupted politicians, arbitrary fee charges, limited accessibility and privacy invasion are a few from the top of my head.

And so is 999998, and 999997, and 10, and e, and pi, and square root of 2; they are all unique and either rare or common, depending on how you look at them. 

And that's exactly why we can enforce our view upon others. Just as Ordinal fans do it in the opposite direction. I don't understand why you make it sound as if we are the bad guys who want to enforce the view that numbers are common, and not the others who want to enforce that numbers are rare.

One thing I never understood is what sets the barrier between looking random and being random. For example, number 888 has the same chances theoretically to be picked between 1 and ~2^256, but it shouldn't, even if the process was completely random, because anyone playing with strange numbers can compromise the key. So you don't want a completely random process, you want one that generates randomly looking numbers, which raises the question of which numbers are looking random, or more importantly, which ones don't?

What proof do we have that Pi is random, even if not definite? Do you mean it is very questionably random?

It'd go like this:

• Download, verify and install a Linux Live OS like Tails.
• Open it up and don't connect to the Internet.
• Generate the seed phrase using the pre-installed Electrum, write it down and save your master public key somewhere.
• Import the master public key and open up Tails every time you want to sign a transaction.

Another good alternative is to use multi-sig, which would mitigate further risks. The above is not ideal, there's room for improvement, but you said it has to be an online machine.

Really stupid concept, almost dangerous if lots conceived satoshis like that. It'd damage fungibility. Every satoshi is equally rare, and everyone should grasp that if we want bitcoin to be good money.

Mathematically speaking means objectively speaking, which is definitely not the case in here. Completely subjectively speaking, and with lots of logic missing, 1 can be even equal with 2. Ordinals is pretty much a product of the latter.

If you don't have a stable income (which I suppose is a salary), then you're either living off somebody else (i.e. your parents) or you're somehow earning a passive income (i.e. renting a house). If it's neither, then you're living off your savings, which in that case should only be used to sustain your well-being until you find yourself an income. (Unless you have a million dollars in savings, lol)

It's not that early. I mean, lightning began in 2017. Six years and two bull markets have passed since then.

It's both already.

That's very debatable. In terms of BTC, lightning has ~5,000 BTC, which is ~$150M. Monero, with a circulating supply of 18M XMR, has an equivalent of ~99,447 BTC. It's much better in terms of anonymity set.

Due to the presence of a genuine technology serving a meaningful purpose and having real-world applications, there exists a clear distinction from the vast majority of altcoins, which often lack purpose and function primarily as financial schemes.

These altcoins offer barely noticeable technical differentiation from Bitcoin and Ethereum and unjustifiably favor their creators with an unfair financial advantage. The failure of altcoins such as LUNA or FTT is not primarily due to technological shortcomings, but rather stems from sudden development setbacks and the subsequent withdrawal of invested funds which hasn't happened in Bitcoin. A brand new such project, whose developers completely ignore the mountainous work done in Bitcoin, entails the unnecessary risks mentioned.

I never argued that. People who invest in altcoins and lose money aren't for sympathy. They should know very well where they're entering. Anything but avoid entering; that's what I'm arguing in the first place.

You make it sound as if it's something objectively obvious. Nobody but the whales define that ceiling with few exceptions. Not regular retail traders. (No, feeling without reasoning you're in the ceiling doesn't hold water)

Don't invest money you don't have.

Does it make a splash? Let me put it this way: Don't use money that come from some family's member pocket to do things you consider smart; like buying bitcoin. Use only yours. Okay, I think it's quite cleared out now. Just in case someone misses the obvious.

Oh, and don't try to convince them, because you won't pay any damage. Taking risks for other people's money is only something the government can do. Let's just leave it there.

Except it isn't black or white in cryptocurrencies. Altcoins aren't either going to complete disappearance or are exponentially profitable forever-- in comparison with skyscrapers that are either there or not there. It's quite normal to wake up the next morning and see a -25% in your trading account.

They do, fundamentally, though. Investing in something you know it has no purpose at all, outweighs any short-term potential profits to me. Gambling can also prove to do miracles (and in fact it's rather transparent, in contrast with all those shitcoins), but it's utter nonsense to believe you can really make a living out of it.

Take into account that Windows Defender does this quite often, because its algorithm involves checking similarities in code structure as with known malwares. It has done it to one my applications, which I had written Visual Studio, and involved Bitcoin libraries (which I suppose are used in lots of malwares).

I confirm I have the same fingerprint as o_e_l_e_o, which expires in 2023-10-03.

It is very computationally expensive; can't run it on my device, it kills it. The operation you want to calculate is:

I wrote this:

The result is:

---

First time writing python guys, and I now quite recognize why it's so popular.