Not every Intel... you should be safe if you use a Core2Duo, but only if you Libreboot it, which means you will need to do hardware changes unless you buy one that is directly modified by someone you can trust. There are some Laptops like the Thinkpad x60 which only require you to flash the bios and do some changes without modifying the hardware.

If you want it to be ME free by default, you have to go as back as Pentium 4...

With AMD, you have PSP, so it's the same, and you can't disable it, we know less about the PSP than the ME. You would need to back in time too, I think 2013 was the last year it was PSP free. Still faster than a Raspberry.

I don't see how it's that bit of a stretch, Im calling $3k as a possible final bottom, breaking the double bottom a bit, so going lower than the last December 12th's last bottom, this would mark the end of the bear market for a perfect go-all-in opportunity. Chances of this may be lower than I would like tho. Maybe im biased and deluded because I missed that bottom, but I still see within the realm of possibility. Something in me tells me that we haven't seen enough pain yet. A final shakedown to $3k ish would put the nail on the coffin for all the clueless people that entered Bitcoin during 2017, wheter it is CNBC boomers or milllenial lambomoon guys. Those need to be deprived of any hope, then, we go all in and ride the Halving rollercoaster to $100k as it aligns with the brewing global crisis in all things fiat.

Im still yet to see an application of blockchain that isn't Bitcoin, and that isn't just falling more on the gimmick side of things. Why would you need a blockchain for an enterprise, when there's already very secure mySQL databases which can be modified only if X people allow it and whatnot? And you can keep track of all modifications in a log.

The way the blockchain was structured is to make it work in a global network. Bitcoin is adversarial in nature and the whole incentive mechanism goes along with how the blockchain works and does what it does. Without the token-incentive mechanism and PoW I fail to see an application for it that is really relevant.

No lo veo desde que en el punto 1) ya citas necesidad de una cuenta bancaria... si estas en el "mundo bancos" ya estas metido en temas KYC a no ser que te muevas en paraisos fiscales ya saber. Entonces el usuario tendria que de alguna forma depositar dinero en esos terminos. Hablamos de firmar contratos, etc. Aqui ya se pierde lo que seria tener una billetera que te descargas y hacer las operaciones pertinentes sin mas. La realidad es que no hay "transicion limpia" entre "mundo banco" y "mundo cripto", con transicion limpia me refiero a que la Hacienda de turno no quiera saber que esta pasado. Fuera de quedar en persona con alguien y intercambiar fiat fisico por BTC, no lo veo.

Es o eso, o ofreces productos y servicios a cambio de BTC directamente. De otra forma, tendras problemas antes o despues. Si te adentras en esto, contrata buenos abogados y gestores, por que debe de ser un buen lio montar el paquete final con todo listo y que sea viable.

El hecho de tener bloques mas grandes no significa nada. Litecoin tambien tiene bloques mas grandes, cualquier otra altcoin puede tener los bloques mas grandes, puedes hacer un fork ahora mismo y ponerle bloques mas grandes que BCH y BSV y asi infinitamente... al final la electricidad es un recurso limitado y por distribucion de Paretto, como vemos, se va siempre al proyecto original, el verdaderamente decentralizado. Si una coin puede cambiar su tamaño de bloque cuando quieran, si se llega a ese consenso tan fancilmente, es que esta centralizada, por lo tanto lo mismo da que sea BCH, BSV o USD.

Solo hace falta ver este chart:

https://fork.lol/pow/hashrate

Con ese hashrate minusculo, cualquier actor con los medios suficientes podria cargarse BCH. Intentar hacerlo con BTC es imposible. El mercado ya ha hablado y le da igual que BCH tenga un tamaño de bloque mas grande, lo que prima es la seguridad y BTC no tiene competicion. Que una altcoin sea mas rapida no significa nada, sin el hashrate que lo respalde y sin una red de nodos decentralizada es lo mismo que decir que Paypal es mas rapido y por eso es mejor.

I think we are up for as massive upset in terms of seeing Masvidal dominating Nate Diaz. Masvidal has created himself this aura of "2 minute killer man" after that flying knee on Askren, he became a meme, both did actually, for different reasons. My point is, he is now in a position where he is seen as a god, and that is just an illusion, marketing. I believe he just got lucky, gambled, and won with that knee into Askren's skull. Those things are very rare. He is going to need a dog fight against Nate Diaz, and I believe Nate is too big, too strong, too thought for Masvidal, but we have constructed this narrative about him after his last fight getting the fastest KO record.

Im pretty sure putting a win for Diaz will be lucrative, we'll have to wait and see. And I also wonder why people say Masvidal is too big for McGregor, if on the faceoff Nate was dwarfing Masvidal and McGregor was able to win the rematch.

Not really, the quote of his dad was that he will give them the rematch, his dad didn't put any conditions, other than it being in Russia:


So it doesn't sound like anything other than a direct invitation to fight for me. Unless someone knows russian and can translate the source directly, 2020 rematch looks likely, unless Conor fights an intermediate bout and losses which is unlikely.

Con temas politicos se refiere a la narrativa de los altcoiners vendehumos con sus respectivas altcoins salva-Bitcoins que dicen que Core son los que quieren un tamaño de bloque pequeño para implantar el LN, por que un par de los Core trabajan en blockstream. Bajo esta tesis se han construido todas esas altcoins que dicen ser "el verdadero Bitcoin", cuando la realidad es que son centralizadas y poco seguras por su poco hashrate y falta de devs top, liquidez, etc. Este sera otro pumper a sueldo de Ver.

Si BCH fuera tan genial, veriamos hashrate moverse hacia alli. La realidad es aplastante. El dinero de verdad no se mueve de BTC.

Lo de los Youtubers es de broma. Sencillamente su trabajo se limita a crear videos con miniaturas de clickbait sobre como el Bitcoin esta colapsando cuando baja un poco. Mismamente para cuando baja, se hacen videos apocalipticos anunciando el fin del Bitcoin. Hace poco ya hemos visto videos sobre el fin de las criptomonedas por el supuesto ordenador cuantico de Google.

En cuanto a entrar en subidas, depende del contexto. Yo solo entraria si hemos visto una caida brutal, como cuando bajamos de 13k a 3k. Ahora mismo entraria fuerte si bajaramos a 3k otra vez, apostando por un doble suelo como figura final antes del ATH.

That's a pretty brutal chart. If you look at the top 10 coins against Bitcoin, you still see the clear path of devaluation of the coins that should be an alternative safe haven to Bitcoin, but there is just no such thing:



If the top 10 can't deliver, then the rest are just a mess, and fiat valuations don't matter due lack of liquidity.

I think they have to comply with KYC to get donations, but im not sure if anonymous means really anonymous, or not shown in public so they have the data but just dont display it on their website.

In any case, it's a positive thing, the more means to get money in good causes the better, and those things usually get good press for Bitcoin which can't hurt.

I think you can donate anonymously, they have made this campaign for instance and there are anonymous donations listed on the bottom right:

https://www.givengain.com/cause/1577/campaigns/5369/

Complete list:

https://www.givengain.com/cause/1577/campaigns/5369/donations/

I don't know if this is only throught this interface-website thing but since the money is going to UNICEF I assume you can donate anonymously, so technically I don't see why they wouldn't accept BTC anonymously, the problem is if it comes from problematic addresses like addresses linked to criminal activity, it may be troublesome, this is why we need better fungibility. It shouldn't matter where the money came from if ultimately it goes into a good cause.

Ok mate fair enough, im done discussing with Khabib nuthuggers which claim you aren't looking at things from a neutral POV. Let's just see how Khabib handles Tony Ferguson. He's never been cut, let's see if he can deal with some massive cuts because he will get caught on Tony's elbows eventually. I will not comment on Conor further. But like it or not, there's a rematch happening in 2020, mostly because Khabib's dad said they will give him the rematch in Russia. We will find out one way or another if Conor ever had a chance. Everyone acted as if Conor never had a chance to beat Nate on the second fight specially at 170lbs and he did what was suppose to be impossible, which is why I can't rule out a win on the rematch even if by a low margin.

What's so stupid about giving Conor a small chance? You guys are deluded. Just because he had 2 losses (against the best UFC fighter right now after a big break, and against the best fighter ever) doesn't mean Conor is now a bum. We've had Andy Ruiz beating Anthony Joshua and Otto Wallin almost beating Tyson Fury due a TKO massive cut. Fighting is a very complex game, things can go wrong very fast. You can't never be safe in your bettings. All im offering you is that it is not outside of the realm of possibility that Conor can win with the right adjustments. Conor did better than all of his previous opponents if you actually look at the fight from a neutral pov. Im not saying he will win, im saying it's impossible, what part of this can't you understand. If you are so sure, then bet your entire net worth into Khabib winning to prove me wrong.

I get your point but mining is supposed to be a neutral thing where you don't have to worry about "picking the correct miner", it should be as simple as sending the transaction, but with a QC machine out there lurking in the shadows you can no longer do this. The problem is miners are anonymous, I can't see a way to rank "good miners" from bad miners. Nobody really has connections with CEOs of big mining farms to really know their agenda. Mining your own transactions is obviously not an option for 99% of users. There's also the theoretical scenario in which miners sense too much of a menace and decide to become bad actors while shorting Bitcoin's price. If we act and plan ahead those cannot happen because the incentives model would still be in place but in a moment of confusion and chaos and the fears of millions of BTC being or not compromised we may see miners freaking out, hence the whole thing must be ready before it happens. The question is right now this is probably sci-fi tier so just like climate change, you'll have a case for both "no need to do anything drastic now" and "start acting now". Result = no consensus, and no planning ahead.

I think you are talking about Peter Wiulle:




It doesn't sound good. The thing with Bitcoin is that in order for it to be "gold 2.0" we must avoid clusterfucks like this, or if they happen, it must be at least an once in a lifetime event. Moving huge sums is a big PITA for serious permahodlers.



Yeah it was theymos and he got hated bigly with his approach. The way I see is that the stash should be re-introduced slowly as mining rewards, or at least that's how I should have coded it since day 1, since if you are the only guy mining in the world, there isn't even a network and you would get a disproportionate amount of coins as the single participant on the system. At the same time I also think he took the bigger risk, so it should be rewarded... tough call.

Solo si se hiciera con la cadena de bloques de Bitcoin, ninguna otra blockchain es decentralizada y por ende inmutable, asi que nadie deberia poner su voto ahi por que podria ser modificado.

Incluso al hacerlo mediante la blockchain de BTC, tendrias problemas para saber si por ejemplo, no han robado tu clave privada para votar por ti. Para paliar esto se deberia crear algun tipo de sistema que te identifique demostrando que seas tu quien vota sin coartada.. pero claro, como haces esto? Por eso es tan dificil votar sin que sea en persona, aunque el voto por correo existe hace tiempo asi que quiza se de por valido. Otro problema que tendrias es que quedaria una base de datos eterna de quien voto que... asi que esto no suena muy bien... deberia de estar todo bien encriptado.. y si es asi.. como lo cuentas?

Let's say Google or your favorite triple letter agency (same thing?) come up with a computer of quantum nature which is able to move funds of our guy satoshi. Everyone starts tripping, headlines everywhere, mass hysteria. How would the game theory involved in the necessary changes to protect from this unfold?

Forget about what to do specifically, just think, of all possible candidates, how would the one that gets selected as the fit candidate become the winning fork? We would have people arguing this or that method is the way to go until we are pushed to the limit? It would be segwit on steroids.

I really wonder about this pretty much daily and I don't have the answers. Not only we would have a problem changing hashing algos, eliptic curves and whathaveyou, but we would need to do something about funds which are no longer safe. What do you do with satoshis stack? How does this resolve? There would be people claiming "do nothing with satoshis coins, they are his coins after all" while others will argue the coins are basically a big vulnerability for the ecosystem at that point. Do you have any clear vision of how things would turn out? These things need to be planned ahead and I don't see enough discussion tbh.

People denying this fact are just living in lalaland. Conor McGregor hatting has become a mental disease in the MMA world. They live in an alternative reality in which they argue Conor McGregor isn't a draw anymore, when he is still the number 1 PPV attraction by a mile.


I also have big doubts he can do it. He has all the resources in the world, best minds in the game to tweak his stamina, but I believe ultimately it comes down to genetics. I still believe Conor can get the job done even if by a small margin, if he tweaks certain things.


Khabib is a great grappler but people are missing the fact that he isn't an elite traditional grappler. He would get beaten in a straight grappling matchup against purebreed American elite wrestlers. What he does is a special mix of grecoroman, wrestling and sambo. He wouldn't be as effective without having the net. I would like him to fight in a ring, things would be very different.


Dustin rematch woudl be cool but I doubt we'll see it. I understand why Conor wanted Frankie Edgar. He wants people that fight as similar as Khabib as possible and Dustin is a very different fighter. But then again he doesn't have any fights that could be pretty huge even if any fight Conor is huge, but Dusting rematch is the biggest story maker.