If the Samourai coordinator suddenly turned evil, why would it make it apparent that it is sybil attacking? We have previously discussed that in a malicious coordinator scenario, the coordinator is paying themselves, so the coordinator fee does not discourage them from attacking. Also, the coordinator can select their own remixed coins for free. So, why not create Charlie, Dave and Eric, to make it seem as if many people are used as premixed inputs?

The content absolutely does not look innocuous. It's called obfuscated Javascript for a reason. It is deliberately written in such a way that is not human readable.

Yes. Basically, the script opens your blockchain.com account in a new window, clicks the backup button, stores your seed phrase in _0x4d583d, and if it is not empty (in case it didn't work out), it sends it over to that pipedream URL. It also send your balance to make his life easier from checking. What an organized scum.

Maybe Alice is online more often than others. Or perhaps it just happened, it's normal to expect that sometimes a user might coinjoin with another more often, because the coordinator is supposedly selecting randomly. So, it's a matter of possibilities. Doesn't seem like the coinjoin is weak, though. Bob is simultaneously coinjoining with other people as well.

Why don't you ask in their Telegram? I'm not Samourai contributor. Here you go: https://t.me/SamouraiWallet.

Thanks for confirming publicly that you have nothing in response apart from BS.

So, let me get this straight. You notice that regulators are hostile on mixing solutions such as coinjoin, yet you're somehow under the impression that they will not be hostile on mixing via mining pools. Makes sense! 

Your proposal is not currently in regulators' remit, because first of all it is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard, and second, because there is no implementation and usage due to the former. Be certain that if enough people started mixing through mining pools, regulators would deem it as suspicious and enact it as illicit, just as with coinjoins.

Regulators might as well say that doing self-custody is to be put on a "watch list", I don't care. If someone wants privacy, then coinjoins and XMR is the way, and that's why regulators try to discourage their use as much as possible. If we switched to mixing using mining pools, then guess what; this process would then be considered illicit, and anyone mixing through the pools would be "put on a watch list".

By the way, you do know that their operation would then be considered a money transmitting service, right? I'm just saying, because I know you're blubbering about this when it comes to lightning.

Wow. 1.04 GB mempool, 128 sat/vb low priority, 12 sat/vb no priority and anything less than 5.6 sat/vb is being purged. I'm done transacting this week.  

Here's an interesting fact: Monero network is also congested: https://xmrchain.net/txpool. More than 10k transactions in mempool, and it's growing like a spam attack. Do we have any information regarding this? If it continues like that, Monero will soon exceed Bitcoin's block size limit.  

You pay the price, buddy. Spend the output that is yours and put a high fee, which as said above, is called CPFP (Child Pays For Parent). There is no other way if you're in hurry. We all want our transactions confirmed the soonest possible, but some of us want it more than others.  

But, you do fully trust the sender, unless the sender won't take their goods in return until the transaction confirms.

Also, why telling the sender to make another transaction and not just rebroadcast the same?

Nice. So instead of refusing to buy this nonsense, let's just give up our privacy options like trustless coinjoins and XMR swaps and put trust on mining pools, as if these new coins are invulnerable to being called "tainted" again. 

Man, you're insane.

Apart from BSV which was an exception, we frequently notice altcoins like Litecoin and Monero being used more as a currency than Bitcoin. Check out this post from stompix: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5478905.msg63402003#msg63402003.

To me the answer is crystal clear. People don't care about decentralization and censorship resistance that much for their financial transactions. They care about those properties when we're talking about the best asset there is. Bitcoin proponents view bitcoin more as an asset than a currency, and that's why it is not worth the risk to implement significant changes. It's that simple, yet we're making it seem so complicated somehow.

There's a reason why you can't prune the chainstate. It's this one thing you absolutely need to verify that the transactions do not go against the protocol. The most you could do to save up space is enable prune=550 (doesn't go less than that).

It is theoretically possible to run a full node from home (where you probably have sufficient storage), and configure your private server to communicate with your home node. But, that's just too much effort. Just buy more storage on your private server.

It already does. To coinjoin, you have to create another (mixing only) wallet, send your coins there, pay a decent amount for the whirlpool fee, wait for lots of days for your coins to get remixed sufficiently, and once that ends, you must be careful to not consolidate the mixed coins together, as you're losing in terms of privacy. And on top of that, you have to be aware that your whirlpool participants might screw things up, ruin their privacy, and ruin yours as a consequence.

In Monero, there are no coin control headaches, participants that may screw you up by mistake, pool fees, nothing. Simply send and receive XMR, just like you're supposed to.

Electrum LN doesn't allow you to set the fees when closing the channel. It simply tells you that closing cooperatively usually results in lower fees, but this is just vague. What's a low fee when the median fee is like 100 sat/vb? If you choose to force-close the channel, then it's almost always more expensive. When signing commitment transactions, both partners select a very high fee for this exact reason (they don't know what the mempool's future holds).

I don't remember using a lightning software that allows to select a specific closing-channel fee. I have used Ride The Lightning, and I don't think there were even low/mid/high presets. Just a straight up "close the channel", which is pretty frustrating, because it's easy to just find an agreement on a particular fee rate when closing cooperatively.

Why would you want that? The title of this thread has to do with securing your seed phrase. Backing up your wallet file is, first and foremost, another topic, and secondly, worse comparably to simply sticking with the seed phrase.

Just to avoid any potential confusion.

• BIP39 passphrase does not encrypt, it is an extension of the seed phrase. All BIP39 seed phrases have an empty ("") passphrase by default, and you can choose to extend that.
• Wallet passwords are used to encrypt wallet files (such as Electrum's password), but as I already said, that's going off-topic.

Try it in Electrum. And even better, in Electrum testnet. Enable lightning, restart Electrum, and it'll start running a node in the background. Open a channel with the suggested node, and buy yourself a coffee.

It's a worse experience in mainnet when there's mempool congestion.  

Everything is fun and games until one of the users wants to close their channel. Every single time that I've tried to do that, it selected more sat/vb than needed. And that's in different software, not just from a single.

The HDD is the problem. Raspberry Pi takes more than a month to finish if you're downloading and verifying on an HDD. That's why it's recommended to finish syncing on your main computer (that has SSD), and transfer everything back to Raspberry later, if you don't want to buy an extra SSD.

Depends a lot on your setup. If you're running a Raspberry Pi, give this link to your wife to calm her down: https://raspberrypi.stackexchange.com/questions/5033/how-much-energy-does-the-raspberry-pi-consume-in-a-day/31826#31826.

I don't think they have expressed it inaccurately. "You can't create more bitcoin", that's a true statement. The fact is that every 10 minutes, 6.25 enter circulation, but they are already created. All 21 million coins were created in 2009, and they're brought into circulation, bit by bit, every 10 minutes. That's not an incorrect way to view it.

No other asset on Earth has this property. That is also true.

IP addresses are rarely used to de-anonymize Bitcoin. It's mostly due to consolidation of many inputs or lack of coin control.

I have never heard of this happening before. Cashing into the bank is much rarer than cashing out, maybe that's why. Usually, you have more money in the bank than in cash.

Even if it happens, what do the police expect from me? Cash is untraceable. I have no damn clue where I sent or received a particular banknote. Any response I give to the source of the money cannot be verified.

This is only the reality if you depend on centralized exchanges which discriminate you based on arbitrary and inaccurate criteria.

There is no "officially dirty" satoshi. There is only "subjectively interpreted as dirty". Chain analysis is inaccurate BS. Different chain analysis companies can produce different outputs. Here's an example of the default Wasabi coordinator treating a supposedly "clean" coinbase output as tainted.

69 and 96 please! 

Thanks! Hopefully I'll win one before the 50th time!