If the hippies at Greenpeace were so worried about the environment and are as "international" as they claim to be, they should start protesting against all those people who are starting to burn coal or are currently on a cutting spree to destroy the planet by cutting the trees to turn them into firewoods for the winter, all under their nose.

But of course all the toxic gases that burning coal releases in the very air people breathe is not important for Greenpeace but trying to turn bitcoin into a centralized shitcoin by switching to PoS is! Well dream on hippies...

Just say bitcoin, why put it in parenthesis

No it is not the reason. Bitcoin is decentralized because it has no central authority and you don't need a third party to send/receive/store bitcoin.

That is a good advice people are giving, the risk is mainly the volatile price but also another risk that sometimes people forget is when newcomers lose their coins to hacks, malware, etc. because they didn't educate themselves and were holding bitcoin on an exchange or something like that.
So they have to be warned about the risks.

The warning itself is not wrong but you are right about lack of explanation.

There is a massive difference between bitcoin and altcoins (ie. "entire cryptocurrency"). Majority of altcoins have an additional risk of being dumped due to being useless and the extra risk of having flawed protocols that can let people steal your coins!

Not really! Setting up a farm doesn't need any "technical" knowledge. In fact all you need to know are pretty basic stuff (hardware, cooling, connecting to a mining pool,...).

That's weird but it may just be a bug in blockchain.com wallet or simply the site not loading properly which in turn it shows the underlying code instead of the result (the code is just fetching the balance). It is also possible that the problem is because of the difference in underlying code in different languages (the code doesn't exist in English view but is in Russian):
https://github.com/blockchain/blockchain-wallet-v4-frontend/blob/0b94eb98568ef08e012f32a0bf6dc8e83c5bd5c9/packages/blockchain-wallet-v4-frontend/src/assets/locales/ru.json#L2603

It doesn't look possible because you still need the private key to compute s since s = k⁻¹(e + rd_U) mod n. where both k and d_u here would be the private key which you don't have.

To be fair you need height for many things but you can still check a lot of other things about a block header even without running a full node (like a SPV client that stores list of all headers) and find a malicious header.
1) Validating header's work (Full + SPV + no need for height)
2) Validating headers's target in difficulty adjustments (Full + SPV + needs height)
3) Validating block version (Full + SPV + needs height)
4) Validating coinbase script to contain the height (Full + SPV + needs height)
5) Validating transactions (Full + needs height)

The first step would reject the attack described in the article without needing a full node or even knowing the height. As you can see only the 5th point needs running a full node.
Keep in mind that passing the first check means the attacker has actually spent computing power mining that block.

There is a lot of old conflicts that are surfacing these days though. Some countries are even bringing up WWII issues, conflicts over territories, etc. They've also started the process of kicking out Turkey (US accused Turkey of war crimes in Syria after all this time of knowing it!!!).

But I agree that Greece-Turkey conflict will remain dormant. Right now Turkey has a purpose to server which is to connect to Baku by occupying parts of Armenia then they can add Baku to NATO immediately to gain a huge advantage (as I pointed out before, which also affects China). If they fail, Turkey's importance to NATO significantly decreases depending on how they failed. For example there is a good chance that the moment Turkey gets involved in this conflict inside Armenia they will see themselves in a whole lot of hell coming from Syria and Iraq (south borders) and Iran inside Armenia and possibly directly on eastern border. Turkey's economy and energy sector would simply vanish with no gas and oil and possibly even 200%+ inflation.

Some analysts are suggesting that this conflict would be prolonged for months where Turkey is sucked in and destroyed slowly. Keep in mind that they have a big military but it is the most dependent military considering that almost everything they have is imported. EU and US are already complaining about empty weapon cashes due to the tremendous amount of weapons they've been sending to Ukraine. So there won't be anything left to send to Turkey.
Which could be another incentive to kick Turkey out of NATO (winter is also coming!), they just call their invasion of Armenia another "war crime" and kick them out.
That also means NATO won't have to get involved when Turkey's mainland is hit in respond to their invasion

Then Greece (ie. NATO) goes after Turkey and may not even need an armed conflict, they just take parts they want without shooting a single bullet.

It looks easy on paper. We are talking about a mountainous territory that is extremely hard to cross and an uphill battle where Armenia has the upper hand and can rain missiles and bombs on their heads all day long.

In any case we have to wait to see what will happen. Right now there is all kinds of fake news coming out and it looks like every military in that little region is mobilized already...

It is a hypothetical token in a hypothetical situation. The price is fixed and you can neither sell it nor use it for anything else. You have to just own it (imagine a hypothetical NFT created for some sort of digital art or something like that).

P.S. please don't forget to also vote

Well if bitcoin price remains close to $20k while other fiat currencies continue dumping in value that means it is a hedge against inflation because it doesn't need to soar to be a hedge. But it's too soon to say.

Additionally we are not just in an inflation alone these days. We have had inflation alone over the past couple of years and during that time bitcoin went from $3k to $70k.

Currently we are in a recession with inflation which is entirely different. Meaning people can not earn enough money anymore (hence the recession) while price of everything keeps going up (hence the inflation).
That's not to mention the two ongoing wars on food and energy.

Price or even value is not what makes a token a token.
A token is simply something that relies on another blockchain, like ICOs, NFTs, etc. build in a token platform like Ethereum.

You heard wrong, or maybe you remember only half of what you heard. Some people made a guess that Satoshi might have mined as many as 1 million coins.

I wouldn't say convert, he basically revolutionized what money means. He did that the first day he released the idea.

Bitcoin is already successful in delivering exactly what Satoshi meant to: a decentralized censorship resistant global payment system.

Let's assume that I create a new token and this token has two main characteristics:
1. The purchase price is always fixed
2. You can never sell it to anyone else after you bought that token (so it can't act as a stablecoin)

You can come back and buy more of it since I can create as much as I want anytime I want but you can never sell those tokens to anybody else so you'll have to own them forever.

Will you buy this token?

Feel free to explain and tell me if the price would be a factor (eg. if the token was sold for $20 or $2000).

It's funny how you hid behind someone else and avoided answering my questions but still proved me right.

It is 29 years later and nobody is "collecting" tokens because they like them or they solve any real issue in the real world or think they are "fascinating cryptographic art".
People "buy" tokens as speculators because they are trying to make a profit like gamblers making a bet (something that can be done using literary anything else).

Even one of the first replies your own topic in Digital goods receives was how can that token be "traded"!

P.S. There is a good reason why every other idea and projects (including Hal's) that existed long before Bitcoin failed but Bitcoin was the only one that succeeded.

---

Edit: I didn't realize that OP is looking for an echo chamber where everyone praises the token he is trying to sell. I'll try to keep that in mind in the future.
In any case I started an experiment here which may interest some of you about the point I raised here.

It is not exactly because of the hardware that people use though. It is mainly about how hard it is to acquire as many number of that hardware. For example back when people were mining bitcoin with GPUs it was still impossible to perform a 51% attack because there were no better hardware like ASICs to provide much higher hashrate so you still had to buy a large number of GPUs to gain 51% of the hashrate and that was impossible.

That's the sad part though because it proves that innovation is dead. Every new coin we see coming out is just being created to make more money. Specially after introduction of token platforms that make scamming people easy. Without innovation, we are going to see bitcoin continue dominating the cryptocurrency world while thousands of shitcoins get short term pump an dumps.

You don't have to use centralized exchanges with KYC to buy bitcoin. In fact you don't even have to buy bitcoin to own bitcoin (you can earn it as you earn any other currency).
This reason is like saying "Tor doesn't provide privacy because logging in your google account that has your real IP and phone number while using Tor reveals your identity"!

Same arguments as above. CoinJoin helps improve privacy but as long as it is done right. If you use a shady software that is working with blockchain analysis companies to deanonymize your transactions (like what Wasabi wallet has been doing) then using CoinJoin is waste of money.

I would ask again: WHY?!
Then I'll encourage them to read bitcoin paper (again). It is a good experience for people to understand why bitcoin is successful.
Also in that paper the purpose of bitcoin is clearly explained and the problems it solves are clearly outlined. Learn from that style and try explaining what problem a "bitcointalk NFT" solves and what purpose it has.

Until then I react the same by shaking my head in disappointment for seeing the same fundraising scheme over and over.

You can't complain about receiving the same respond for creating the same exact topic!

The 51% attack and you mentioned is about replacing an older blocks with another valid block meaning they both follow the same "correct rule" since they are both valid. You can't reject such blocks. Also technically it is not the miner rejecting invalid blocks, it is the node.
The reason why 51% attack doesn't work is because how decentralized the mining in bitcoin is. It is not possible to gain control of that much hashrate.

I agree with your whole post, but I should add that there is still a lot to be learned from the history. And it is not about history repeating.
For example the simplest and first thing anybody would learn by looking at bitcoin charts is that the market is very volatile and sudden drops and sudden rises are normal and don't have to have some big reason behind them.

There are a bunch of proposals that can be found among the BIPs and they also post about ideas on the bitcoin mailing list. I don't know of anything that is awaiting activation though. The last new OP we had was activated with Taproot soft-fork and it was called OP_CHECKSIGADD.
More new OP codes could be added through existing OP_NOPs or through OP_SUCCESS as part of SegWit/Taproot or new witness versions.

The funny thing is that when you start your silly definitions, everything else you claim later start falling apart too. Like money which is also a "simulation" in your little world that it doesn't really exist and people took it seriously. So there is no "real money" either to use to "play bitcoin" or get it back from new players.

Other benefits are for NATO which are massive:
3. Some say Baku will be added to NATO overnight if they succeed in taking that little corridor.
4. Europe would gain access to the gas-rich Caspian sea and can manage their energy crisis a little better.
5. Gaining access to that sea means NATO military bases right at northern Iran's border and bringing their navy to the Caspian sea threatening the whole region that includes both Iran and Russia.

For now it seems like Baku knows better to get into a full invasion of Armenia so they will most probably have a lot more of these "little adventures" with high casualties that end too fast in a cease fire like the recent one but each time advance a little more into Armenia.

Things could escalate real fast though, if a third party gets involved... I wouldn't rule out possibility of "something" hitting Istanbul out of "nowhere" either... There is already a conflict between Greece and Turkey too...