The point of such board isn't to address your issue (only). It is to educate yourself about security, with guides, lists, stories etc. And I'm in favor of such board.

I don't like it. Lots of sub-boards can bring worry. If you want to talk about something specific for a Bitcoin wallet, use a Wallet software sub-board. If you want to ask questions related to wallet software, use that board. If you're interested in improving your competence around security, you should visit the proposed board.

We should also have a separate privacy-related sub-board, in my opinion, but that's off-topic.

Actually, 19 million coins have been mined, and we're about to witness 20 million mined coins in about 4 years.

Of course, another weird interpretation of franky. Being scarce isn't the same as being highly divisible, but who am I to ruin your fantasy? Bitcoins aren't scarce. Gold isn't scarce either, we have grams. Food isn't scarce if you cut it in multiple pieces! Time isn't scarce, we have nanoseconds.

Or we just don't, to maintain this awesome, non-negotiatable, steady inflation rate.

What do you mean it doesn't have a fixed supply? It very much does. Just enter bitcoin-cli gettxoutsetinfo, and it will return you the total coins in circulation your Bitcoin node considers spendable. Every 10 minutes the supply increases in a fixed manner, and the subsidy is halved every 210,000 blocks in also a fixed manner.

I agree. The sentence "any funds you receive after this will have been stolen by the partner" can also been interpreted as "you get stolen after you've been ripped off by cheating partner", which doesn't make any sense.

@darkv0rt3x, that book is good. I had read it until onion routing, because that was the chapter whom I had the most questions.

It's easier to be a consumer than to be a merchant. So, if you want to sell bitcoin, you could just purchase gift cards from trusted stores (using bitcoin), instead of being a merchant yourself. Buying bitcoin with gift cards is rather difficult.

I haven't ever made an offer myself, I've only picked others' offers. So, it was instant.

How sure are you about that?

There is no doubt that signature campaigns have incentivized some users to give more importance to the quantity of their posts rather than their quality, so they can fulfill the post quota. But it has also incentivized knowledgeable users to assist anyone who's in trouble. Compare stackexchange with our Dev & Tech board. The former is alive, because a few developers are in charge of it (Pieter Wuille and Murch for the most part), and as far as I know, they get paid to moderate it. And sometimes, a SE post is left unanswered. Try out asking something in the Dev & Tech, and get zero assistance. I assure you that there will be greater chance, if nobody is paid to help.

Secondly, in the early days of this forum, there were no signature campaigns. Do you think those discussions were more constructive than today's? Find me more than three constructive discussions from this old, random page of the Bitcoin Discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=1.52480

Prediction 2: $21,166.00
bech32 address: bc1q3dmelaryzjmngtyjaq0dyzu884z7knz657eulu

You can extend smart contract compatibility off-chain. What I like about Bitcoin is that we're safe from attackers who wish to have us execute arbitrary code. Script is limited on purpose. The main layer is a living giant that can't be exploited to known (and yet unknown) Turing-complete weaknesses.

Rootstock is a sidechain that allows you to develop your DeFi applications, with EVM compatibility. I like how they put it:

I never understood why signatures don't appear in Serious Discussion board. Like, is it because it attracts spam? By that reasoning, should signatures be disabled on the entire forum? Are the rest of the discussions not considered serious?

I think what we need is simple: a brand new sub-board, with a sticky mega-list thread which is moderated in a divided manner. So that if you're having a query, you can check the thread.

I don't know, but I don't think it was an accident. You really need to be irresponsible as fuck to not be cautious when spending 4+ BTC. Couldn't there be a new kind of Proof-of-Burn perhaps?

They are definitely not burned. Besides Satoshi spending them (which, between us, I don't find it a wise thing to do), the public key of that address is known. It's entirely possible someone spends that output, once the underlying cryptography is weak enough.

I wouldn't think otherwise if you hadn't provided this link. The CEO of Chainalysis must have had some crazy government acres, considering he's been part of the USA government spending, lol. $55.4 million dollars, just for one spying company.

No exchange. If people don't care about their privacy, and you force it on the protocol, expect a new bill from both parties that treats Bitcoin as illegal activity (or some other nonsense), before tomorrow morning. I believe it will pass.

My bad. I wasn't referring to subsequent mixing, but to the preceding mixing-- the one made a little after you send coins.

One way to avoid the scenario of using your mixed deposited funds as future chip, is to be aware of the chip size that was used for these chips. Say, you sent 0.2 BTC, and ChipMixer later split that money to a 0.16 and 0.04 worth of bitcoin chips. Acquiring chips that aren't of that size (0.16, 0.04) insure you won't have this connection.

You can't, because outputs are faster than inputs from a blockchain perspective; you can't receive chips which were created using your just deposited funds, because you can only receive chips which were made before your deposit.

Vouchers don't expire.

I think a more proper board for this thread is Services, because you want to buy some service from someone else. But Project Development does fit too. It's just that it has lower activity than the other.

Raspberry Pi 4 does come bluetooth, indeed.

Imagine using the same device for saving seed phrases and downloading random NFT games from unknown mail senders.

It is recommended to move to Linux, but hear me out: it's free if you don't value your time.

But this doesn't have to do with firewalls. As far as I understand, the virus spreads on emails, and nobody hosts their own email server from home now more.

Another reason why you shouldn't install a savings Bitcoin wallet to a closed-source mobile OS, right as well as you shouldn't login to exchanges from phone.

Which ironically never was 2FA, to begin with. If you use the same device to login and to confirm the SMS, then it isn't 2FA. (i.e., logging in to exchange from phone)

That doesn't work as an argument, alone. It's a feature, but it is only taken as a benefit by those who support stateless money. There are people who oppose free enterprise money, and I gotta tell you, they are lots in number.

You don't have to trust the system. You can read the news, listen to opinions, and form your own conclusion about how world works.

Sure, but I think the answer isn't as absolute as it might sound. If I advertise a service, aren't I considered an employee of that service? Or aren't I an employee at all? Am I considered working for somebody else? Am I subjected to the integrity of that else?

Purely hypothetical, but let's say either Betnomi or ChipMixer does money laundering (without the acknowledgement of their campaign participants). Are participants considered guilty, from a legislation point of view, for accepting laundered funds? We don't sign any legal documents when submitting the registration form, and I'm curious how far can the authorities reach this.

I'm not into the law, and there might be differences in each country's legislation, but I'm concerned about this. Am I considered a co-worker of the services I advertise? If the authorities strive for shutting down one of these services in my signature and avatar, am I subjected to this activity as well? If the CEO of either ChipMixer or Betnomi (as examples) is proved to be guilty, am I guilty as well?

Asking a lawyer is probably a better idea, but I'm just curious if someone else had had the same concern before.

They don't know what's the destination, though. That's another level of privacy, comparably with the blockchain.

If you took the time to read the whitepaper, you'd acknowledge that lightning exists for micro-transactions. Not for 3 million dollars worth transactions. But, yeah, I'm the one who needs research. 

That. I don't understand why such fuss for this. Isn't it possible that a smart person makes a human mistake? Don't smart people lose their cash by accident every day?