Good point, that is more secure.

That's a fake sense of security. I realized the same when offering my Fork claiming service: if either one of the parties moves the funds, it's impossible for the other party to prove anything. So it really comes down to trust.

If you do this, will you post a full HOWTO? It's ridiculous Coinbase killed this service, but it would be nice for future reference, even many years from now.

I've used this for seed phrases for my Fork claiming service:
I've edited out my own email address, obviously both parties need to use Protonmail for the email to be encrypted.

The self-moderated topics were not restored. At least the risk was known when I posted in there (I just didn't expect it).

Shame on you
Go read my Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system:
Lol.

Don't worry, I have a backup. Restore your Trust list (with at least 10 users), and you can be selected for DT1 and mean something for DT2 again.

Did you ask theymos to be excluded from DT1? If so, your exclusions only matter for the users who have you on their Trust list (and the users who included them). If not, all you have to do is "reactive" your Trust list. If "the good people" don't want to be part of DT1, the Trust system fails.

Python is a programming language. You should be more specific in what you did.

I take it you don't have the same Android app anymore?

This is exactly why I like to verify my backups with different software to make sure I can restore my backup before funding it. I know it doesn't help you now, but you should use it next time.
I have to ask: why didn't you let Electrum create it's own wallet with private keys, instead of using a non-standard setup?

Again: be more specific. Did you create 5 different legacy addresses from the same private key? That's not possible. Or did you create 5 new random private keys? In that case it's no surprise they're different.

Chances are you created the wrong address. From the information you gave, I can't tell you what went wrong. Bitcoin legacy addresses didn't change.

It's possible you downloaded a compromised version of Electrum. If you check your address on a block explorer, is the balance still there?

Is it? Or is there some structure behind it on the quantum level that we just don't understand yet? And even if it's truely random, your measurements can still get compromised.

Then again:

But also:

I'm pretty sure this is a translation issue, and he must have meant his post history.

Cool! So Guest R20231030 is Ratimov's new name

I checked this list, and those topics have been restored:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34.
That includes some of my own (Merited) posts in topics that weren't self-moderated, and Ratimov indeed should indeed not have any power over those.

I didn't realize until now that also Mods deleted topics with other users' posts. That's quite a big mistake.

Yeah, they can try

Anyone who thinks tagging imposters is trust abuse is free to exclude me from their Trust list. Or maybe you should think about who you're rooting for here. Imposters are up to no good.

Can you confirm you are who you say you are by posting your Bitcointalk username in cryptospend.com.au/bitcointalk.txt ? If you do, I'll leave neutral feedback confirming this. This will add to your credibility.

That just means he's one deposit away from activating. I've tagged the imposter.

SMF is old

If there's a quote inside the deleted post, clicking the quote usually brings me to the topic. This is definitely something that can be improved (also when a Mod deletes a post). Adding the topic title and a link to the topic make it much easier to find back (without using third party tools).

That'll turn into a tabloid filled with drama
Another forum I visit sends a short summary every 6 months or so, usually based on some large changes and the rest based on which topics I've been active in. But by the time I haven't visited that forum for 6 months, I'm not so interested anymore. So I don't think it's worth the effort.

I can imagine it "feels" safer and especially more familiar to see a number in your broker's account, than having to deal with your own transactions. People are used to buying ETFs this way.
But the management fee is a good one: I hate those! I wish I could just keep my own shares and store them by myself, instead of paying my broker and the fund owner.

But.... that's the fun part

I can probably do it myself, including daily updates, if someone else makes a one of those online graphs with daily updates.

You're taking it out of context. This assumption was needed to calculate the required amount of heat transfering through the coin, and the result of the calculation made it clear it requires an unrealistic amount of heat.

That means you'll have to transfer 400 W of heat through a coin to reach a 20 degree temperature difference between sides. If you're not seeing how ridiculous this is, I give up.

To quote satoshi:

That's an understatement.

That's the thing: when a site just works as expected, there's not much to discuss.

Even easier: Search topics. You can quickly find the very short topic titles, nicely kept in Archival.

Is this worse or better than people who trust exchanges or soon ETFs with their Bitcoins?

While technically correct, I think it's a good choice to display the information. The block explorer knows for a fact that the same private key can access the funds, so why risk someone overlooking his funds?

The main drawback: you need a hot wallet, and can't sign offline. I'd always recommend an offline setup with Bitcoin Core for these amounts.

We're talking about hot wallets here, $50 is acceptable but I wouldn't want a lot in it anyway.

That's what Receive forum announcements and important notifications by email is for.
I meant this one:

If you really hate your privacy, you can of course use any third party bot to forward your emails to Telegram, but I wouldn't recommend it.