If you download a distribution other than from the main source, i.e Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Slackware, Fedora or whatever it might be assume it's compromised, and don't consider it a trusted machine. That's including private key generation, and the Blockchain itself, since ultimately your operating system has control, unless it's been overridden via the hardware itself.

You can get around a lot of these problems like putting tamper evident or security seals on each component of your laptop. You can make them actually mark the casing if they're removed. You could potentially get these custom made. I've got tamper evident seals on my laptop for use when traveling, as well as a lock pad on it. I've never had an issue, and they've never even asked me to unlock the padlock to see if it turns on or anything. I've got some looks at times, but I've seen other travelers do this as well. As long, as you follow the instructions, and place it outside of a bag they usually don't have a issue. Plus, its usually setup in a way that you can watch how they are handling your stuff.

As for the internet, just use a sim cards internet instead of public Wifi. It's a little better in practice, and obviously continue using a VPN especially on untrusted connections.

Even if that's somewhat true, I'm not much of a fan of passphrases in the first place, and believe that every single passphrase should have some sort of password element to it, i.e a randomly generated sequence of characters. Otherwise, you're effectively making it less secure by using a non random set of phrases, especially if well known. I only say this, because of course a passphrase could actually be a good way of doing it, but most humans wouldn't go for a random passphrase, and come up with commonly thought of passphrases, which is obviously problematic.

Although, I do agree generally there shouldn't be any limitations on what characters can be used or the length. While, this isn't for hardware wallets, I've come across websites including banks which limited characters like "*", "(" and "@" which is totally unacceptable in my opinion.

It's no secret that I'm a Izzy fan so I'll definitely be routing for him to win at least the once against Alex. However, I'll give it to Alex he's definitely made his mark, and he's probably got a decent career ahead of him regardless if he remains champion or not. He'll likely challenge for it multiple times if he doesn't retain it, which I don't believe he will. There's too many good wrestlers in this division, and he doesn't seem to have the best of takedown defenses. That's something that Izzy is pretty decent at, and one of the reasons why he retain that belt.

I want to see Bobby up against Alex if possible though. Although, again I'd probably want Bobby to win I don't think he would, but since Izzy seems to have his number it'd be nice to see him going for champion status without going against Izzy.

It's a common scheme in the marketplace sections, where users use new accounts in order to give those reading the thread a false perception on whether the service/product is legitimate. So, yeah this isn't unheard of. Although, stronger evidence would be preferred to negative tag them. However, I imagine you'll find a lot of users willing to neutral tag them based on this. Ultimately, it's up to you what you do with the trust system.

Although, you're somewhat right; the space before the comma isn't a common thing to do, although that doesn't necessarily prove anything.

As pointed out by many users on this thread, and over the years they wouldn't be bruteforcing the seed. Bruteforcing is literally the least efficient way of breaking anything, and the seed isn't exactly the weak point. Whether or not you believe quantum computers will be a realistic threat to Bitcoin, you've got to acknowledge that we'll probably have to change in order to defend against the possibility. Now, that's absolutely years from now, and no where near the two years that HomerF_48 suggested.

Now, I'm not concerned since I know that the changes have a long time to be thought over, and the changes that are necessary will be made way before quantum computers become a realistic threat. Also, just because a quantum computer could be developed to attack the ECDSA, doesn't actually mean that's what it would be used for. It's not like your common criminal will have access to a quantum computer.

Bare in mind, that SD cards are more prone to failure than traditional storage methods like hard drives, and SSDs. SSDs, are generally more expensive, along with SD cards. Hard Drives do the job for storing the blockchain, have stood the test of time, and are generally quite reliable, and cheap. It doesn't matter what brand you have of hard drive, we've got to the point that most have decent longevity, and are relatively cheap to replace when they finally give in.

When you're looking at storage methods for the blockchain, at the moment it has to be a hard drive. They're the most cost effective, while your second option would likely be a SSD card, but they have a limited amount of lifespan, that's determined by the cell usage, so if you're writing a lot of data to the SSD you could potentially hit that relatively soon compared to that of a hard drive. Although, the amount you're writing to the disk with the Blockchain isn't massive when you take into consideration 24/7 RAID servers that are basically operating constantly.

That being said, hard drives are generally bigger so won't fit in the palm of your hand as much as a SDcard, although that entirely depends on how big your hands are doesn't it . Most SSD cards today are tiny, and aren't far from a SD card, especially m2 SSDs. Although, I don't think many users here would have a problem accommodating a hard drive that can store massive amounts of data at a small cost compared to the alternatives. 

Either the RAM, CPU or the storage method. Some users might cheap out on the SD card, and get one that's got relatively low write speeds, which could be the bottleneck.

Yeah, there's a lot of unknown fighters this weekend, but that's kind of exciting in its own right. Some of these fighters could potentially be the next big thing, and every fighter has to start somewhere. I'll be quite honest, I don't know a lot of them so predictions are hard especially when I'm struggling to find tape on a few of them.

Not sure a commission would even allow that to happen. Logan Paul, to my knowledge doesn't have any experience whatsoever in MMA, while Paddy Pimblett is a future star, that's if he isn't considered a star right now. I just can't see that happening, not because Logan Paul doesn't want it to happen, but because there's no way that gets signed off.

It'd be interesting if he is allowed to compete at all, since I wouldn't have thought so due to his lack of training in MMA.

It was touch, and go for a while. Bulls really did turn the pressure up, and you could see the Scarlets caving into the pressure. However, they did really well to be honest. Soaked up the pressure, and then sucker punched Bulls right at the end. In fact, they nearly scored a second try towards the end of that game.

As for your question, if the Bulls played like that the whole game, with that amount of pressure the scoreline would've likely been vastly different. However, that's just speculation, the important thing is the Scarlets actually got a pretty decent result, and possibly an unexpected one for most people.

Yeah, well it does matter to an extent. However, the size difference is mitigated more with better technique in MMA, and that's mostly only true when it comes to wrestling. Not striking, being bigger, and having more power behind your shots is definitely going to help you.

Also, fancy him for the double champion status. He needs to work on his defensive takedowns, he shouldn't have been allowing Izzy to take him down, who basically has no experience in doing so at least in fights in the UFC. The thing about Alex, I don't think anyone's better than him at kickboxing, but Izzy. The thing with Izzy he hasn't got that natural frame like Alex does. If Izzy was a little bigger, then he'd probably have a lot more success on those that are bigger than him. Alex, moving up he could be smaller than some, but he's definitely not the smallest in that division either.

Insurance is mostly just legalised scams, you pay a monthly fee or annually for something that's unlikely to happen. Hence why, insurance companies are normally massively profiting. Alright, some insurances are nice to have admittedly, and the government backed scheme of guaranteeing your money if your bank falls through, is quite nice. However, that goes against Bitcoin's principles, and there's no realistic way of doing it. Who, in their right mind would insure something that can't be proved to be lost? Unless, you gave your insurance company all of your Bitcoin, and they controlled the private key there's no way of doing it, and it should go without saying, but that's a big no, no.

Nah, I'm talking theoretically since I'm talking about the morality of something rather than this specific occasion. It was pretty much summed up that there was no theft, and some users speculated that this could've been a scam attempt, which it might have well been. However, I wanted to reference that this is actually a really difficult situation to be in, and personally I don't know what I would've done. Like I said above, I probably wouldn't have even checked if the wallet had any Bitcoin in it, which could've been a waste of my time trying to find a owner of a wallet that has nothing in it.

It would be difficult to find the real owner, which encourages people to take the Bitcoin for themselves, which again isn't ideal.

I'd say, any worth their while have at least an option to have two factor authentication. While, that shouldn't be the determining reason of what a good, and bad hardware wallet is, I'd expect any of them that are at least somewhat security conscious, would have it as an option. Now, depending on how it's implemented that could mean additional risk as pointed out before, and that won't immediately be obvious to all users. So, I'd like to see warning messages on enabling or disabling any security feature on a hardware wallet through their software.

However, that's really only possible with software, since the actual hardware itself is limited usually, and I believe some operate without much software at all these days. Also, just to clarify what I mean by software is traditional software run on a separate computer to the actual hardware wallet itself, obviously the hardware wallet itself will have its own software running, but due to limits in size they usually can't include much documentation or information through that device.

If Francis' boxing career doesn't go to plan, which I believe he's going for the Tyson Fury fight. Then, Bellator would likely be the best option for him, rather than any of the other promotions. Probably, the only one that can compete with the UFC in terms of fame, as well as wage. I believe Bellator get paid more, but obviously at a reduced publicity, which might be important to some fighters. I don't think Ngannou is that type of person though, if his leaked demands are true, then he seemed to care about the state of fighters health, instead of lining his own pockets, which you've got to respect.

Anyway, what's our early leans for this weekend coming up?

Well, despite it not being the biggest event this weekend, I'm just grateful there is an event on. Honestly, because I've programmed my body to stay up to watch UFC as it's often on late. I now struggle when its not on. I'm going for a Derrick Lewis win though, by TKO/KO. I think he'll surprise us, and actually pull it off. I think the odds are in the favour of Spivak, so might earn a pretty penny on it.

I've seen quite a lot of celebrities in the UK without bodyguards. I think it's very much an Amercian thing. Obviously, celebrities do have bodyguards to some extent, but only really at events, and the like. I've seen Youtubers have bodyguards, but people like Tyson Fury often run around their local without bodyguards. Unless, they're watching from a distance, but I doubt it. Would probably defeat the purpose of them.

I'm not all that shocked we got knocked out by Brighton. They've had our number this year, along with a lot of other clubs. Not sure what Klopp can do from here onwards. Probably struggle until the summer transfer window, and I can't see it us getting the players we want anyhow.

I probably won't be watching anymore of the FA cup, but hopefully it'll be  a lesser known club than the top teams in the country.

Not sure they outplayed us, especially in the second half. Liverpool were overall the better team, but they definitely did lose. Dunk even admitted in his post interview he didn't mean it .

I guess it depends on how his boxing career goes, as I assume that's his next chapter in his career. If he doesn't perform well in boxing, it could be a short lived career, and he could want back into the UFC, which then the UFC have some leverage. They'd probably negotiate a big contract still, but I'm not sure if it'll be to the same degree as the one offered this time, and it probably won't involve medical cover either.

I wish the UFC would do that mind. Adequate medical insurance for all fighters on the roster, they could potentially negotiate smaller wages if they had that back up. Since, it's a risk for a fighter every time they step in there, that they could potentially rack up thousands upon thousands of medical bills. 

Yeah, I'm basically talking facts there, with a little speculation sprinkled in. However, realistically if Bitcoin is still being adopted, then we should see the deflationary aspect of Bitcoin kick in, and the price should increase. I can't tell you if it'll increase much or by how much, I just know it should theoretically increase. You should see this after each halving specifically.

Yeah, you're right. When the block rewards don't exists anymore or are significantly reduced that they don't impact the market as much, then the price of Bitcoin will be more stable, and therefore more predictable.

I don't know if I know that, since Jones is one of the greatest to have entered the cage. However, I would be supporting Ngannou if that fight ever did happen. I think that ship has sailed now though, don't think we'll see Francis again in the UFC, which is an absolute shame. Seemed like a great guy, delivered entering fights, and the super star fight that him vs Jones would've been. Dana would've been happy too since he would've profited insanely off of that fight. Assuming, Jones does well against Gane of course.

The most interesting part of it is that Jones is making his comeback in a weight class up, now even fighters that move up in full swing of their career have struggled with that. Izzy being the latest one, alright he was significantly underweight against Jan, but it still goes. Jones, might not be the same fighter. However, due to his wrestling focused approach, I think he'll transition a lot better than Izzy did who really struggled with that threat of a takedown, and not having much of a ground game.

These two are getting paid very handsomely, and it seems Jake Paul has really pushed for this to happen. You've got to respect that after having the issues from Tommy, he still made the fight happen. It's probably the most logicial step in his career to make an impression to the greater boxing community. So, I can see why he was eager to get this done. There's also an element of risk. I don't think I'd see any of the other Youtube boxers making the same move, so I definitely respect Jake for getting this done twice.

I think I'll be supporting Jake in this fight, and definitely put a bet on him. I think Tommy will be decent mind you, I don't think it's going to be a easy fight for Jake. I know, he isn't as good as his name suggests, but he is a boxer, and while not being the best boxer in the world, the same goes for Jake.

I dislike when fans because they don't like Jake, simply want him to prove himself by fighting the best of the best, but in the same breath scoff at him when he says he wants to beat Cancelo. Jake is proving himself to me, step by step. Plus, he's doing it very intelligently, I don't know who's suggesting these fights to him or if it's himself thinking them up. He's making the perfect move each time to build a real career out of this. Tommy, despite not being the best will excel his career forward if he wins.

That's not 100% true. I mean, even exchanges have been known to scam users. Even the big ones. So, there's a potential to lose Bitcoin at any point, and then there's the issue of losing your seeds, and private keys. Which, by the way due to certain conditions, the older you get the more susceptible you are to it. There' also issues like getting physically hurt, and sustaining brain damage. Like, there's a ton of things that can go wrong in your life, which ultimately means you lose your Bitcoin. The benefit of banks is that this can usually be verified, and recovered since it's tied to your identity. Bitcoin isn't, so you statement isn't exactly correct, even though I do get your point.

If Bitcoin were to become mainstream though, trading with Bitcoin for goods would likely have to happen for those that use it.