I didn't understand the first part. But your computer is dead. So how are you replying to comments in the forum? Smoke signals?
In any case, if you want to learn and do it, you can, with or without "your laptop". You can get on a friend's computer, or you can do it through a cellphone.
It seems to me you're more focused on finding excuses than solutions. Doesn't seem like the best way to get things going...

You don't end world hunger by donating food: you just delay it.
There's a saying (a meme, actually) that goes "Poverty's antidote is not money: it's education."
As long as you keep sending food to the indigent, they will keep being miserable. You feed them today, and they'll be hungry again tomorrow. But if you invest in education and feed them, you will create the foundation for a better society in the future. And it doesn't take such an ungodly amount of money either, it just takes the commitment of people helping people for the right reasons, not just as a tax write-off or a PR stunt.

Latin America doesn't need a chance, they (we) need a collective brain transplant.
As stated above, to think drug dealers will just "pack up and leave" because drugs are being legalized would be a gross oversimplification. They don't need the money, the same way Elon Musk doesn't go to work for the money either. There's a known fact that Pablo Escobar offered to pay off Colombia's debt if they left him alone.
In Uruguay, prostitution has been legal for decades, yet prostitutes didn't cease to exist. The real difference is the state gets taxes from prostitutes, and they get medical attention, retirement plans, and the whole shebang, and the whole trade is a lot safer, both for the prostitute and for the customer, and the state saves taxpayers' money on paying cops and the whole system to fight against a crime they can't beat.
With the drugs it's a similar problem: under the "head in the sand" policy most countries are following now just to prove how "correct" they are, drug dealers thrive, because, once you reach  a certain level, nobody bothers you, especially not the police.
So legalizing drugs would not make much of a difference to the general public (other than the fact that a junkie would be able to go to a pharmacy and get better quality, regulated stuff, instead of the garbage they use today), but it could make a difference in terms of taxes, and expenses on law enforcement.
That said, the problems for Latin America are many, and most of them are way bigger than drugs. Sure, legalizing drugs would probably decompress the situation a bit, but I don't think it'd make much of a difference.

COBRAS: if writing "just 10 lines" in python is so easy, and everyone here is (in your opinion) a scammer,  why not learn python yourself and write your own code? A really good python course can be had on Udemy.com for less than $15 when on sale (I should know, I got it).
Nobody in here (or anywhere else) will do that amount of work (simple as you may think it is, which only shows you don't know the first thing about programming) for free. I'd say you should be grateful they even took the time to reply to your thread. instead of that, you keep insulting everyone that would even consider doing the work for you. Doesn't seem like the best way to get people interested, is it?

As usual, you guys are very informative. Thanks to all.

larry_vw_1955: I'm not really worried about the tax collectors. One of the (very few) good things about living in a lawless country is you don't really have any obligation to pay taxes, and nobody can do anything to you if you don't. The downside is you have to fend for yourself, because the police is just as non-existent as the tax agency.

The reason I'm worried about security is twofold: first, Argentinian hackers are said to be among the best (not surprisingly, considering Argentinians generally have  penchant for doing damage), and second, if you do get hurt (physically or financially or whatever), nobody protects you, you're screwed. The law here is so twisted that if you defend yourself, you go to prison.

ETFbitcoin: I'm setting up to use Binance. Might I have any problems if I use my wallet (I'm intending to use Tails on a pendrive with persistent storage and Coinomi) through Tor with them?
And yes, I am using 2FA authentication.

n0nce: yeah, I'm already setting Tails up, and I intend to never connect it to the internet. I am loving your steel idea though. Stainless steel. that would be one helluva way to store your seeds. 

Typically, if "something" costs USD 50 in the US, it costs about USD 300 to 400 here. To give you an idea, a few years ago I bought a gun. Made in Argentina. I could literally take a bus and be at the factory's doors in less than 40 minutes. That gun doesn't exist in the US, but a similar one (same brand) is about $300. I paid $850 for mine, on sale.

Pmalek: yeah, I'm already doing all that. just thought it'd be nice to add an extra layer  of security, just in case. in the (hopefully near) future I intend to have a dedicated computer for trading, and connect exclusively through Ethernet, but for now I have to use public wi-fi at a Starbucks store, so I'm getting very paranoid on that, especially since Starbucks has already had some "issues" with their network getting hacked in the past.

Charles-Tim: so, no Tor and no VPN. Got it. Thank you.

BlackHatCoiner: that's way over my head already. Guess I have some serious reading to do...

Again, thank you all for the replies. 

Not really. I read many emails on the ledger site (examples of emails users have been getting) from several kinds of criminals (scammers, extortionists, etc). Now, it's not like they're gonna scare me into giving them a single penny, but if I can avoid the issue, I will. Especially if I save money in the process.

Thank you all.
Law enforcement in my country is kinda "loose", to put it very mildly (it's a lawless sh1thole, to be honest). that's why I want to be as safe as I can before I mess up. I agree what's important is what people think you have, so I usually don't share my successes (especially when it's about money), which is the reason I want to keep my transactions anonymous if at all possible. Way too many prying eyes...
I also read plenty of horror stories about people getting targeted for using hardware wallets (especially the Ledger), and either way hardware wallets are absolutely unaffordable to me right now, which is why I decided on using Tails on a thumbdrive. Definitely cheaper (I already have the drive), and safe, as long as you don't connect to the internet.

I intend to use Tails with persistent storage on a pendrive, with Coinomi. I don't know if it's the safest, but it's what I can afford.

I haven't started yet, just brainstorming. I read a whole lot of articles citing advantages to using Tor over a VPN (as opposed to using a VPN over Tor, which is said to be harder to implement and not as effective), so it occurred to me that could be a good way to protect your private keys when you need to use them, but I wanted to know your opinions first.

I tried to post this on the "Serious Discussion" board, as it doesn't necessarily pertains to Bitcoin, but couldn't do it. Sorry. 

So, as I stated before, I've been doing a lot of research, while getting ready to start investing. Not surprisingly, I learned that there are a lot of criminals preying on crypto investors.
Now, money is (courtesy of, among other things, the damn pandemic), very tight. I've been looking at ways that may be within my means (or lack thereof) to make my investments as secure as possible.
So far, I'm looking at using 3 operating systems (Fedora Linux for my main activity online, most likely with Tor, Windows 8.1 inside a virtual machine for information and monitoring purposes only, and Tails with Tor for coin cold storage).
My question would be, initially, about VPN's.

Would using Tor over a VPN be a good idea for crypto trading? I understand (to a point) the advantages of such a setup, but would it provide any real advantages in this case? Is it worth the extra expense?
I know Linux is generally (not 100%) immune to malware, but I'm particularly worried about phishing and keyloggers. In the meantime, I have installed ClamAV already, and I'm keeping as secure as I can. Am I overthinking it?

Thank you all! this thread is turning into a bonafide crypto encyclopedia, and I'm loving it!
Yeah, now that some time has passed, I can see you guys are right, there's basically nothing to it. So far, I'm reading whitepapers (ETH whitepaper turned out to be another disappointment though), and slowly coming up with a list of currencies to buy, maybe.
In his course, Chris Haroun advises people to have a long term view, as opposed to a day trading attitude. I can understand that. My question: would it be wrong to do both?
In any case, these are the coins I'm looking at, so far. In all cases, with any luck, I should be starting with $10-$15 each.

BTC
ETH
BNB
LUNA
XRP
ADA
SOL

Anything you guys see (good or bad), that I might be missing?
In the (maybe near) future I'm looking at investing on WOZX, as I strongly believe in their mission, and it's been down for some time. But we'll see...

I can personally attest to that. I have seen people actually buying Bitcoin (which is obviously the preferred crypto for many scammers) without even having a clue what a cryptocurrency is. They're told they'd have BIG profits (we're talking 1000's % a day) and they go in blind. Could never understand that specific breed of idiots.

Yeah. It's not like I've got scared, it was a minor dip anyway, I just found it surprising that they all seemed to follow Bitcoin almost to the minute. Now I'm starting to get it. Probably some fair amount of panic selling involved.
Either way, I'm learning a lot, and loving it. Hopefully in the next few days I'll be pulling the trigger.
Good thing is I'm a Linux user, so I don't have to worry (that much) about viruses and whatnot, and a few past experiences have left me very paranoid on the subject. Got a cold(ish) wallet already waiting, all I need is to get some money. 

Ok, I used to be a security technician (installing alarms and cameras for several companies), so I think I can help here.

First, you can think of the phrase "home security" as an oxymoron. If we're gonna be rigorous, there's just no such thing.

Then, if we're talking about what most people consider "home security", there are 3 kinds: before the fact, during the fact, and after the fact.

Security "before the fact" would mean taking measures so that potential invaders will either think twice about targeting your house, or will be just unable to enter. Something as inexpensive as a sign from a reputable security company might be enough to deter a wannabe burglar from even considering your place a potential target. From then on, the sky is the limit: multiple, good quality locks, bars on the windows, heavy doors...

Security "during the fact" (which is the kind of security the police should provide), means basically installing an alarm system, ideally monitored by a reputable security firm, to not only deter possible burglars, but eventually catch them if they do break in anyway. Of course, you can set up an alarm system so that it reports to you in case somebody breaks in, which may be a good or a bad thing, depending mainly on your circumstances.

Security "after the fact" is what you are trying to do here. Cameras may be useful to identify burglars after they robbed you. You can opt (again, depending on your circumstances), for services like monitored security cameras (you need to consider your privacy also), or installing cameras (monitored or not) covering your doors and/or windows, etc.

In the case you're asking about, first I would be wary of any security system that uses RF to connect the sensor(s) to the main unit, on the basis that RF can be interfered with. From then on, adding "things that may fail" (like an internet connection, the cloud, etc) is never a good choice.
Then you also need to consider what are you protecting. For example: if you are a billionaire cryptocurrency trader ( ), you're gonna need a much better security system than if you're a regular Joe. 

Initially, I would advise you to "leave security systems install to the professionals", but seeing how many "security technicians" don't really have a clue (or don't give a damn) about their chosen profession, I'd just advise you to be careful. Securing a house is not a technically complex job, but it does, in most cases, involve thinking about a gazillion little details most people don't even think about.

af_newbie: which is why this remains a philosophical topic. Everybody keeps saying proving (one thing or another) is "impossible", and nobody focuses on actually finding a solution to the problem at hand. Very convenient for some.
In any case, it's not a scientific issue. Religion is not scientific, and neither is atheism.
Best case scenario it's a clash of opinions.

Nothing is "impossible", it just hasn't been done yet. I believe in science. As that, I make no claims as to the existence or not of any deity or "higher power". I believe there isn't one, but I might be wrong.


Well, if we consider the wise (and technically accurate) words of "Morpheus", "reality is just a series of electrical impulses interpreted by your brain".
Nothing is "improbable": it just hasn't been proved (right or not) yet.


Nope. "Science" means "knowledge" in Latin (well, "scientia" did). As that, not being able to prove the existence of a given deity (or even of all deities) doesn't mean deities don't exist. Religions should be able to prove their respective god's existence, while atheism should be able to prove no gods actually exist. Until then, this is gonna remain a philosophical matter.

Silberman: that actually makes a lot of sense, especially when you consider a lot of the response to a coin's movement may be automated. I hadn't thought of that.

andriarto: that's what I wanted to know. I've been researching for a bit over a month (including the aforementioned course), but it surprised me to see such a fast reaction from other coins.

Darker45: sorry, that wasn't my intention (and it sure isn't my intention to make a disaster with my money...  )
Either way, I'm intending to start investing on 6 different coins (including bitcoin, ethereum and bnb). What I meant was, if I'm investing in a number of different coins, it would make sense to get coins that are not going to crash all at the same time (yeah, I understand there's no way to really know). 


Oh, I know it's not a bug.  Bugs don't take 12 years to fix. I'll have to disagree on the "feature" thing though...
Having an unknown founder also means there's nobody responsible (legally) if things go south. For all we know, Bitcoin's founder could be Bernie Maddoff, or Kenneth Lay. The point is transparency only works if you display it always, not only when it's "convenient" to you.


I understand that, but Bitcoin's owner(s) have had 12 years to state their purpose. Articles are, at best, educated guesses. I'd like to see an official statement, straight from the coin's owners, to that effect

Just to make things clear: that doesn't mean that Bitcoin is a no-no for me. I'm considering to (ideally) start on at least 6 different coins, and I do acknowledge Bitcoin's pre-eminence on the market. But I wouldn't even dream to have a 100% Bitcoin portfolio.
The reason I started the thread is because, while I'm aware of the market's fluctuations, it surprised me to see such a fast reaction from other coins (especially Ethereum and bnb) to Bitcoin's dip.

In any case, this thread has been very informative to me. Thank you all for the help. 

Thank you both.
I'm trying to learn as much as I can right now, before spending any money, or even making a decision.
I understand the importance of Bitcoin in the crypto market, but to be honest, I have at least two big problems with it:

1. In a market that boasts transparency, it remains a coin with an unknown founder.
2. I have read Bitcoin's whitepaper, and it's mostly an essay about the advantages of cryptocurrency, but not about Bitcoin. 

So while I have already decided I will most likely include Bitcoin in my future portfolio, I'm definitely not putting all my eggs in that basket...

Got it! Thank you all for the replies.

Actually, if we take atheism as the rejection of the belief in any deities, I'd say atheism is as unscientific as religion is.
There is a basic rule of science: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
At that, atheism is just the (wrong) belief that, because science has been unable to prove the existence of any such deities, they just don't exist.


Why, is it any better now, with religion?


Well, it could be argued that objective morality can ONLY be reached without religion, since a religious person will only be moral for fear of being punished, or because they're expecting to be rewarded.
In any case, the fact that a claim may be "outlandish" doesn't necessarily disprove it.
"If God wanted men to fly, he would've given him wings", was the belief in the early 1900s, against the Wright brothers' "outlandish" claims. Mel Brooks said "He would've given him tickets".


The burden of proof lies on everybody making a claim. Not being able to prove the existence of something doesn't necessarily disprove it.
Personally, I don't know if deities (or any specific deity) exist, so I believe (without any proof whatsoever) they don't. So I act as if they don't, and follow my own moral compass, without fear of retaliation or expectation of reward.