Always online be it midnight or daytime you hardly see him offline.
Many platforms show somebody online even if only the computer is online and the person is in the pub or sleeping. Even more, there used to be tools to trick the computers you're working on it. they go on dropping messages upon messages for him without getting back any response from him even at different interval, cause his focus all through the period online is in cryto with the aim of trying to make a living out but these other persons not having a clue feels he is deliberately ignoring their messages. Although he seldom reply to a very limited few important ones, to the extent I know though.
Now, we all know that feeling when you keep on dropping messages severally to a person whose status indicates online but no response. Very awful right!
If you'd to that to me I'd set you on my ignore list, so you can keep spamming (yes, that's the word, I am sure you don't like it) and I am no longer bothered. Maybe this is what your colleague did? This days people chase online money so much that they forget the place of giving or spending time with friends and family. And that's a very bad habit.
People spend far too much time on online platforms whether they're chasing money, play games or just spend time they find "quality time", The world has change. Spamming them never helps. Why don't you pay him a visit? Are you also staying too much online to get out a little, even risking you get there and you don't get in (like in the old times)? All in all, you have some good advice, but you're also doing it wrong, not only your friend/colleague. |
|
|
|
The market is red, and every cryptocurrency is crashing. Is it better to wait for a further drop in Bitcoin and Ethereum, or would DCA be better?
DCA is usually the best way for Bitcoin. For ETH I cannot tell; ETH may go south badly if it (ever) goes PoS, but you better ask in altcoin area... What will happen next?
Sorry, my crystal ball was malfunctioning and I've sent it out for technical inspection, I can't help with this. How long do you think the market will take to recover?
As I said a few days ago: A rough calculation tells that at around 1.5 years after halving there's the ATH and the downtrend starts, after one more year (more or less) it's basically in the crypto winter and from that point we're getting slowly back to bullish trend, and in 1.5 years there's halving again.
So if you do the math in Q4 we should be back on (slow) up trend. Of course, this may or may not happen. Or may happen earlier. Or later. (Sorry, I know it's not helpful, but I don't want to lie to you.) |
|
|
|
Apparently, the sideways market broke down not out. Are we in a "now what" situation? Or do you think this is as far down as it goes? Even the week chart looks bad for BTC. Any suggestions what to do?
1. As said, we don't own a crystal ball. 2. Bitcoin movements are not so much predictable. 3. If the 4-year cycle patterns are still correct (I don't say they are, and I don't say they're followed accurately!) then the price may start looking good only in Q4/2022. And this means that going lower is possible. (And again, this doesn't mean it will). What to do? * If you trade, learn to use stop loss * If you bought, learn patience for longer holding (or face the truth that you blew it, if your only option is to sell). Historically, if you hold for 4 years you're usually in profit. * If you plan to buy consider DCA, so no matter the future price direction you're pretty much covered |
|
|
|
In my opinion, $13K is quite possible this week for Bitcoin.
I find laughable that a good number of strong voices on Twitter are very convinced and convincing - for more than a week now (!) - that the price is on the verge of going sky high. And what the price does.. we can all see. 13k possible? Clearly. But actually both directions are just as possible right now imho. If one wants to buy (since one's crypto winter is other's summer sales), then DCA-ing would be best, really. Don't wait for the price get to 13k (or whatever value) because it may or may not reach that point. |
|
|
|
Quantum computer news headlines were published on may 9th, 2022 triggering a BTC decline.
So it took one month for the people realize and panic? Investors know that quantum computing is expensive and if they start using it crack this or that, there may start much bigger problems than Bitcoin. I don't think that investors would get panicked by quantum computer advancements yet. Not yet. Also investors know to read the panicking news with quite a pinch of salt. We're in the part of the 4-years cycle usually called crypto winter. While I hoped it won't go as low (as percentage) as before, Bitcoin seems to insist that history can be repeating. Over and over again. And since we're "on thin ice", whenever NASDAQ is falling, Bitcoin price is falling too, not recovering (yet). All in all there's crypto winter, there's uncertainty on financial (and stock) markets, there's the gloom of a nearing financial crisis and imho all of these matter more than the news about quantum computing. |
|
|
|
|
Is he in a business related to Bitcoin? Yes.
Did he give a timeframe for this to happen? No.
So it's, again, a 100% biased and 100% worthless speculation in order to get his company in the news and also show that he does believe in Bitcoin.
Indeed, Bitcoin has the potential to get to those levels... eventually. It will take a month, a year, a decade or more? Hard to tell.
|
|
|
|
Actually, it's not just Mercedes and Hamilton. Sainz, Gasly, Ricciardo also complained about bouncing. And on that ling straight it looked really painful.
Though, I'm not sure that changes in regulation is needed. As Norris said, teams can adjust height and reduce bouncing, but they will have to sacrisfy performance in this way.
I have a feeling that while indeed some of the cars do bounce badly, all this new drama about the health hazard may be triggered in order to: * get some more attention on Hamilton, Mercedes and their sponsors * if it succeeds, by chance, and a regulation is imposed, then they hope that all the cars may have to get a "safety margin" so the car is not bouncing and then maybe the Mercs will be on top again I find pretty much laughable (in a pretty sad way) that when Hamilton has a problem, people should make regulations for him to be fine, but when regulations are to be made, he may not comply (see the piercing safety regulation and drama). |
|
|
|
I've said it right after Barcelona, that was the moment they've changed the engines to something worse than what they had at the start of the year. Pretty shame, they've killed their chances, Leclerc's, and the chances of 2 other teams too. Not much to say about today's race. It could have been *very* interesting... until the Ferraris started failing one after the other. The only memorable part for me was the fixing of Tsunoda's rear wing / DRS flaps with duct tape. And then surviving until the end of the race.  |
|
|
|
|
I've just noticed that I've received (sometime in the last 24h) the payment for 2 weeks.
Also I see Royse777 is online (or he was in the last 15 minutes).
|
|
|
|
So there IS a limit to how much you can spend on repairs caused by a race, yes? And what happens when that budget's hit? They can't repair the car and the team has to retire?
If they spend more than the budget cap they get penalized. There are discussions already about the possibility that some teams may have to choose at the end of the year whether to skip a race or go over the budget. The "lucky" part is that the budget is in USD which got very strong against GBP and EUR and this may squeeze a couple of extra millions of GBP / EUR, since the teams calculate the expenses in European money. This is old (written in 2020 for 2021), still can give an idea about how the things go: https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.the-2021-f1-cost-cap-explained-what-has-changed-and-why.5O1Te8udKLmkUl4PyVZtUJ.htmlPS. Impressive run for Checo in FP3, I didn't expect him to surpass Leclerc. |
|
|
|
I watched the second video I mentioned in OP that talks about ECDSA signatures. It's another community talk with one of the project’s researchers, who discussed the threshold ECDSA signatures.
For the IC canisters to hold and perform BTC transactions, they need the ability to create ECDSA signatures. To do it securely, a secure and distributed signing protocol is required. Similarly to what was mentioned in the first video, they are talking about a private key that will be divided into several parts and distributed among the Bitcoin replica nodes in the 2nd one as well.
The replica nodes must agree on the ECDSA signature based on an arbitrary policy enforced by the canister. Individual shares are combined to create the signature when they come to an agreement. The ICSs trust model is such that a 1/3 of the replica nodes could go rogue. However, it should still be possible to resume standard network functionality (apparently). The efficiency of getting a signature from a canister must not be affected even with some nodes being offline or malicious. Even if all replica nodes were to go offline, the network must maintain a way to provide signatures for transactions and recover coins. Replica nodes will periodically be shuffled and change places with nodes from other subnets to prevent or minimize the potential of malicious colluding between node operators.
It’s essential to mention that maintaining and holding private keys in canisters will require a certain cost. That’s because they have to be shared among multiple nodes. The shares need to be distributed again in case of canister upgrades, security updates, etc. ICP plans to create a mechanism to recover private keys in case all nodes go down.
A master private key (a small number of shares of it) will be shared across several subnets. This distributed master private key is supposed to solve the loss of signing capabilities in case all the nodes of one canister go offline. The master keys will only be shared with “high-security” subnets. Not all subnets will work with ECDSA signatures. In case of subnet failure, one master private key will never be reconstructed in one single place. The question is, how do they determine which ones are of the highest security and which ones aren’t?
I am happy that somebody takes the time and see/try to debunk whether this IC is something good indeed or not really. Until now it looks dangerous/exploitable. Possibly a bit overcomplicated too (but it's just a feeling. From what I see: * Ill intended smart contract owner can get too much power if he wants to and nobody can stop him. * We have to trust that the private key doesn't get recomposed by malicious actors * We have to trust that there won't be too many rogue nodes * We have to trust that the distributed master private key doesn't get recomposed/used by bad actors I won't say yet that it's a bad concept, but I fear that are too many points where something can go wrong (and as usual, I would be happy to see I was wrong and worried for nothing). |
|
|
|
I am offering typing service. Convert text from images to MS word. Payment method BTC.
Text images are usually converted to text with OCR software and then corrected. Typing them would be more work than necessary and probably higher price than necessary. ..Just saying... |
|
|
|
DT itself is "moderated" by the community  We like to think it is, but it's not too good. And I'm not talking about Timelord2067 here. There's quite a known trust cycle from where every time some people users get into DT. It may be an unpopular opinion but I fear that if your red tag will be removed you may start spamming the forum just to meet your posting quota. That may be, but negative feedback shouldn't be used against spam. You are right. And I already said that imho the negative feedback was too harsh. But since we were analyzing the situation from all the angles, I thought it's a detail that very much deserves to be mentioned. |
|
|
|
for example: if you get a private key which creates a given address, you may mark it as "taken"
...and when you'll want to recover an address from its private key, you won't be able because it's already taken; the blockchain won't know it was you. Such a setup can work only in a system where it will be needed to identify you as owner. |
|
|
|
What is the proper way of doing this? Is there some option to tweak or maybe i just add another receiver on the end of transaction with
Myoriginaladdress, !
When I want to get the change in a spending address instead of change address, I also use successfully <address>,! I find it as good option as any. Another direction should be to uncheck in preferences the use of change addresses; I've never used this option, but it looks designed for your use case. PS. If you have Advanced Preview enabled, you can take a look onto the transaction before broadcasting; it may help, to be sure. |
|
|
|
|
Probably this was answered in a way or another, hence I start with apologizing for being somewhat lazy and didn't research deeply and just came asking.
Is Monero and the official wallet working good with Ledger Nano hardware wallets? Is the setup mature enough?
I would like to finally move my few moneroj from paper wallet to hardware wallet (basically to have one HD seed for both BTC and XMR), but I want to be sure the underlying parts are mature enough.
Maybe somebody having his moneroj already on HW can help with this?
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
There is no harm in downloading, even if it is a virus.
Nowadays, when Explorer looks into the file in order to display image/thumbnail/preview it does open/run the file and it looks like it can get malware running. Just read about the latest MSDT / MS Office vulnerability: MS Word vulnerability could lead to stealing your bitcoinsThere’s an example video here of the first part of the combined set of vulnerabilities, showing how downloading a word file can lead to the file launching "whatever" without even opening the file. The trick though may be that it requires the file to be at least previewed to some degree on the file explorer, but simply browsing a directory with preview set can lead to that.
|
|
|
|
and got negative feedback for speaking up. I then created a flag and saw there were few people supporting it, so I created a giveaway of 10 mBTC to either support/oppose the flag
One problem is that you're lying. I am sure that you know that the flag was because of the money offered in that so-called giveaway, not because of speaking up. Then is the problem with that giveaway of yours: I've seen it, I've interpreted it like you see everything like gambling, even the trust somebody deserves (and this is pretty much wrong). From the feedback you've got, I see it was interpreted also that with your prizes you may have tried to get people support your flag (to get good money, not cursed one, lol). And this is (much) worse. There is a saying (maybe not in English, but I'll translate) "If two different people tell you that you're drunk, you better go to sleep". I understand that you may be frustrated, but it's not the entire forum bought up by casinos, no. You should start looking again to the presented facts and the conclusions and see that something is wrong with what you're doing or how you do that. |
|
|
|
What do you call these letter identifiers after the port number? I saw the :s and another guide had a :t
Am I supposed to use :t to run it through Tor or something?
The letter is basically the protocol identifier, though for each protocol there's a default port. It's not something related to Tor. supported protocols (“t” = tcp@50001, “h” = http@8081, “s” = tcp/tls@50002, “g” = https@8082; non-standard port would be announced this way: “t3300” for tcp on port 3300) I read that Bitcoin Core stores your wallet data (xpub etc) unencrypted on the desktop. Is there a setting to prevent that so only Electrum is handling the wallet data?
1. xpub is not a security concern. 2. I guess that it cannot work without that info in Bitcoin Core (that was my missing bit and one of the reasons I've dropped EPS), but, as we said in the past, maybe you consider switching to Electrs server which doesn't care/works as good no matter how many wallets you use in Electrum (and doesn't need any wallet info in Bitcoin core) Also, is there a way to close the command line window of EPS once it's running? X-ing it out closes the server currently.
Did you try Ctrl-C? |
|
|
|
We're in the middle of the 4-year cycle. What kind of mid-cycle are we talking about and where do these cycles come from and why, after the market recently reached the new ATH, is this the middle of a cycle? Can you elaborate on this, this is the first time I hear this theory? I calculate the cycle from halving to halving. 4 years. A rough calculation tells that at around 1.5 years after halving there's the ATH and the downtrend starts, after one more year (more or less) it's basically in the crypto winter and from that point we're getting slowly back to bullish trend, and in 1.5 years there's halving again. Am I wrong? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
