And as time goes on, the proof from the signature becomes less significant. There'll definitely be a time in the future when someone finds the private key of the genesis' public key[1]. This won't make them Satoshi. Proof of ownership isn't proof of identity either way. It'll be really vague if a valid signed message appeared out of nowhere and I wouldn't hold my breath that they're Satoshi.

---

[1] 04678afdb0fe5548271967f1a67130b7105cd6a828e03909a67962e0ea1f61deb649f6bc3f4cef3 8c4f35504e51ec112de5c384df7ba0b8d578a4c702b6bf11d5f

Wanting Bitcoin without Bitcoin, an interesting thought although of course it makes no sense. Bitcoin is a decentralized cryptocurrency, and if Russia and China want an independent financial infrastructure, then they will design a centralized financial product that will be 100% under their control, and it can never be anything like Bitcoin.

So isn't China a leader in the CBDC and the digital yuan has already become commonplace in that country? Let the Russians make their own CBDC and then let them trade with each other if they want to - no one is forcing them to use the US dollar or the euro.

Soon, Chainalysis will support Lightning Network transaction monitoring in KYT! Staying compliant with regulations will be vital as the second layer protocol is adopted and we’re excited to be the first in the industry to offer this support.

At first, I wasn't sure if the news were legit, but I found articles on Russian news websites about it, so it seems like the talk actually happened. They want an infrastructure that won't be under control of third countries, but there's a big potential difference from Bitcoin: there's nothing there about the financial infrastructure being independent altogether. Bitcoin's not under control of the US, but it's not under control of China or Russia either. I believe this is not desirable for Putin and Xi, as they'd prefer a centralized currency that would be under their mutual control. That being said, it might be very hard to achieve, so they might settle on something like Bitcoin as good enough.

Move funds from earliest known blocks to another, newly-generated address or any other address. That's the simplest and easiest way. Signed message also works, but CSW and co found some loopholes which makes their signed message appear legitimate.

Then again, the real satoshi would probably not try to make his/her identity known, and would just stick hiding and keeping a low profile.

BREAKING: Putin and Xi agreed "to set up an independent financial infrastructure to service trade between Russia and China" which will be designed to be "invulnerable" to "pressure from third parties."

In my country, it is necessary to undergo kyc before you can start trading and even in remittance center where you will cash out your money                    from crypto also implement kyc. I think this is the way of the government to be able to trace your accounts even in crypto. But I'm not afraid of kyc because it is the only way I can trade and earn money. Our privacy may be violated but we can do nothing but follow their rules and regulations.

Bullshit.

I don't know how people dare to talk about predictions so vehemently, like lecturing us, as those of us who have been investing for many years know that predictions based on charts and patterns fail constantly.

I was going to ask you how much you want to bet, but of course, the bet has to have a time limit, and then you pull this out of your sleeve:


You don't tell us anything we don't already know.

You are missing the point of DCA. The entire point of DCA is to not try to time to market; pick an amount and a time frame, and invest regardless of what the price is doing at the time. As soon as you try to time the market then you are no longer DCAing. If you want to do that, that's fine, but if you want to do DCA then you should see if you can set up automatic recurring buys so you don't even have to look at the market at the time of your purchases.

Hahaha I had actually laughed on that ugly face part which i do really have those same feelings whenever i do asked out with that selfie with ID plus having that paper telling the current date.

As for requirements then it would really be depending or vary whether you could accept or take the risk on where those information would be stored. Some peoples mindset that what should they would be afraid about? As long it could bring out convenience then it doesnt matter at all.

Yep, on Telegram. I've just checked it. More correct translation is "So what, is this the [non translatable rare idiomatic expression], or is it a fat bear trap before the jump? After all, BTC could well test 30k again!"

Basically, I wouldn't say he told something definite or really informative with this phrase

But in general he sounds quite nervous about current BTC movements and pessimistic re world economy, which he believes will draw down BTC too, marking end of the 5th EW wave (though he didn't tell exactly when he expects that).

Masterluc calling for 30k (if translated correctly) on telegram group. Here is his post

Hy чтo, тaки пиздa pyлю, или жиpнaя мeдвeжья лoвyшкa пepeд пpыжкoм? BTC вeдь 30к мoжeт oпять зaтecтить!

The government is not an independent entity, it is just an organization in society that consists of the same individuals like you and me. Should these individuals have the right to access and interact with a decentralized permissionless network? Not only should they have such a right, but also no one can prevent them from exercising this right should we think otherwise. The problem with the government as an organization, however, is that it obtains its income not through voluntary mutually agreed and mutually-beneficial peer-to-peer exchanges like other individuals do but through coercion and aggression against people who happen to be born on the territory the government controls.

The government doesn't need to ask permission to enter the network, and it also doesn't need permission to take away your bitcoin.

The government will never agree to be a part of a decentralized system because it is a profoundly centralized institution that always wants to control everything and everyone.

The government that once had the power to manage the whole economy will not accept the decentralized monetary policy and fixed supply that can control no one. The government will never accept the idea of the free market in money because it cannot obtain money honestly without aggression and coercion. Bitcoin is not for the government.

I disagree. Bitcoin is all that for individuals not for the government. The government (and the whole country) can reach independence without needing to use bitcoin. For example El Salvador could drop USD and create their own currency to be more independent. But that's not enough, a lot more work has to be done so that history is not repeated (they apparently had their own currency and their economy was failing that they had to adopt USD).
By adopting bitcoin the country will gain some good amount of profit in the coming years but that still wouldn't be enough to reach the goals OP outlined. I don't follow El Salvador news but from here and there I see their president is doing some good work. The infrastructure, bitcoin city, attracting foreign investment, ...

One thing is certain though, adopting bitcoin as legal tender is so much better than creating your own cryptocurrency. Like what Venezuela, India, China, Africa and a couple of others have done or doing that has either failed miserably or is waiting to be fail as the govcoin gets released.

If I wanted to buy $1,400 of bitcoin every week, should I buy $200 a day or should I buy the $1,400 every week?

Any options will be greatly appreciated.

It’s been years since I looked at the BSV protocol however I am pretty sure the way it’s designed is that any dormant coins will just be brought back into the supply and miners will get those coins.

The issue is that if you look at the BSVUSD chart, you will see it has hardly done anything for the past few years. A few scam wicks here and there and that’s about it.

Even if he gets those coins, they will be worth like $100 each and if he starts to sell the coin will tank to like $1.

I don't disagree with that at all. If a private company wants to set ridiculously invasive rules and requirements, they are absolutely free to do so. And if an individual user wants to compromise all their privacy and security by complying with those ridiculous rules, then again they are absolutely free to do so. That doesn't mean it is a good idea, however, and it doesn't stop KYC from being antithetical to the whole point of bitcoin.

This is similar to using a third party payment processor to process your transactions or using a third party web wallet or exchange to hold your coins for you, as both are antithetical to bitcoin and defeat the entire point of not having intermediary third parties. Doesn't mean people won't do it, though.

Yes, it absolutely is.

Look at what the whitepaper says about privacy:

KYC prevents this entirely. You cannot keep your public keys (and by extension, your addresses and transactions) anonymous when a centralized exchange controls all your keys, knows exactly who you are, and hands that data over to massive blockchain analysis companies.