A signature is proof of ownership of a private key, but the purpose of a digital signature really depends on the context, much like the hand-written signature on a contract or on a letter. For example, the purpose of me signing a message saying "I own the account odolvlobo" with the private key of a previously posted address would be to prove that I own the account, and not that I own the private key.

A private key in Bitcoin is a 256-bit number. It allows you to send bitcoins at the address associated with it. It can be encoded in the WIF format as a set of letters and numbers, but that is not what it is as that is just one way to write it.

A seed phrase (also called a recovery phrase) is not a password. It is the value used to generate all of the addresses and private keys used by a wallet. It should be kept secret like a private key, but it is not "like a private key" because it is not used like a private key.

When someone writes "wallet address", it make me wonder. Perhaps they mean an address in a wallet, but is there such thing as a non-wallet address? A wallet is not an address nor does it have an address. A wallet contains addresses (and their private keys). A wallet can contain one address or it can contain thousands of addresses. So, I would suggest avoiding the term "wallet address" and just using "wallet" or "address", depending on what it is.

This is what I am talking about. You and others simply don't understand the context, presumably because you weren't around at the time. What is interesting is that you even posted the pictures the pictures that justify his statement, but you still don't understand.

Let me explain quickly. In the pictures, he is showing that Bitcoin was originally intended to be a payment system, and that BCash (BCH) kept the idea of keeping transaction fees low so that it would make is a better payment system, as intended. In contrast, Bitcoin's (BTC) small blocks make it less useful as a payment system because the fees are too high. That is what he means when he says something like "BTC is not Bitcoin and BCash is the real Bitcoin". Saying that he is trying to manipulate a market or trick people into buying BCH is just being ignorant.

If you disagree with him, that's fine, but at least respect his opinion.

According to Plaid, this is the information they extract from your bank account:

Well, you will have to get used to it. This is what is will be like in the future. Bitcoin's success means higher fees.

I feel that there is a lot of undeserved scorn for Roger Ver.

I would bet that none of the persons responding in this thread has ever met him. I would also bet that most of the people responding to this thread were not even aware of Bitcoin when he was around. I would also bet that most people have not even bothered to read what he has written or listened to what he has said. Everything you know about him is second-hand, at best. It is said that it is the victors who write the history. Roger Ver was a big-blocker and he had very good reasons for his opinion, but the big-blockers lost the debate, and so now everything you hear about him is from people who were against him.

The fact is that Roger Ver has done more for Bitcoin than any person stating any opinion here.

Like everyone else, he has made mistakes and said stupid things. The biggest one was believing his friend Mark Karpeles, when it was pretty clear that Mt Gox was failing. But, he is not a scammer and he is not a con man, as people like to claim.

Bitcoin Core is completely unaware of ordinals and inscriptions. It will not handle them correctly. The inscription you received at bc1p2pct... is gone.

You can check on the status of your inscriptions by entering their addresses in this site and checking the activity: https://ordiscan.com

There are wallets designed for sending and receiving inscriptions. You must use one of those or you risk losing the others (if they aren't lost already).

What's wrong with his statement? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. He might be right. He might be wrong. We will see.

BTW, have you noticed how more and more people are referring to Bitcoin transaction fees as "gas"? That should tell you something.

Anyway, loyalty to a cryptocurrency is stupid.

Dedollarization may be a fact but I think it will be a very slow process. The U.S. dollar is so pervasive as a reserve currency that it has become an integral part of the economic infrastructures of every country in the world.

I think we are looking at decades rather than years.

None of those things appear to be related to Bitcoin.


An address is a public key hash. An address is used to receive bitcoins. If you want to receive bitcoins, download and install wallet software, use it to create an address, and then have the bitcoins sent to that address.

Your question is unclear. A pay to public key hash (P2PKH) transaction is the kind of transaction used to send bitcoins to an address beginning with a 1, such as 13GAVJo8YaAuenj6keiEykwxWUZ7jMoSLt.

I think that adding any fee structure to the protocol is a bad idea.

One problem is that it could backfire. For example, your fee structure would encourage splitting up one large transaction into several smaller transactions that would take up more space overall.

Ordinals is implemented outside of the Bitcoin protocol, so only the privacy of those who use Ordinals can be affected.

I'm not a lawyer or an expert, but I believe that the GDPR is flawed in regard to the rights of someone who makes their personal data public.

For example: J.K. Rowling has sold about 600 million copies of her books. If she decides that she wants her personal data removed from these copies, would owners of the books be required by Article 17 to do so? Would all non-journalistic mentions of her association with her books (e.g. awards) have to be removed?

The relevance here is that someone who makes a transaction is intentionally and actively broadcasting that transaction and all of the information contained within to the entire world. I think that demanding that the entire world destroy that information is unreasonable.

We are getting close.

The Secretary of the Treasury says that June 1 is the date that the U.S. will begin defaulting on debt. That day is only one week away.

Also, note that even if some agreement is reached before June 1, it still may be too late to prevent a default because bureaucracy moves slowly and the government may not be able to start making payments in time.

Max Keiser is a buffoon. He might be very intelligent, but unfortunately that's not how he presents himself.

I would think twice about anything that he says.

QKD is a method for securing communication. Bitcoin does not use encrypted communication or even encryption. Bitcoin uses hashes and signatures, neither of which are applicable uses of QKD.

Perhaps I am being narrow-minded. If you show me how any kind of key exchange could be used in Bitcoin, then I might agree that there is something to discuss.

Bitcoin doesn't rely on encrypted communication so I don't know where it might be applicable.

Exactly.


If these are better, then why are they not being used?

Perhaps one of those is a better solution but people just aren't aware. What's the best action to take in that case?


People don't prefer things because they are "technically" better. There may be other considerations.


If it is better for me, then that alone is enough. If it isn't better for you, then you have your alternative.

If there is a better solution, then people will use it. Perhaps the issue now is that there is currently no better solution.