Not in recent years, use Adblock I used to not mind the advertising, until more and more websites went overboard and became unbearable.
Also great in Firefox: about:config > image.animation_mode > once.

Some advertising went crazy with blinking avatars.

Interesting choice of words, why would you say "laundered" instead of "obfuscated"?

One could also argue the other way: "the penalty could be lower if the owner cooperates and provides accurate details on all processed transactions, thereby effectively nullifying the obfuscation". One way or another, I wouldn't use this as an argument to convince users there is no logging.

Sounds good, try it

Only 47.3 million out of all 1.16 billion used Bitcoin addresses are still funded. That's 4.08%. It doesn't matter much compared to how small the chance is of finding a duplicate.

See these brain wallets, or posted private keys that still receive funds.

Thanks again for your flawless timing!

And I'm saying it's not possible It's more of a philosophical discussion than technical.

Saying it's theoretically possible doesn't help new Bitcoin users. It's theoretically possible (and billions of times more likely!) to guess my creditcard and phone number, but it's still not going to happen.

This is a bad analogy. It may be unlikely that you win the lottery, but it's very likely that someone wins it. Depending on the rules of the lottery it could even be a given that someone's going to win.
With random Bitcoin addresses, it's not only unlikely that you recreate an existing one, it's unlikely that anyone does it. It's so unlikely, it's safe to say it's not going to happen. I literally bet my money on this.

Some people would argue that 99.9999999999999999999999999999% is certain enough. There are much larger risks that are much more likely to happen, and many of those events still don't happen.

Based on math, I can rule this out. There's really no point in assuming something with a 0.0000000000000000000000000001% probability is going to happen.

It's simply irrelevant.

That's not very intuitive, I wouldn't have guessed it. Maybe a "click to edit" message can make it more obvious.
I like that it keeps the aspect ratio.

How would this incriminate you?

BestChange has a few instant exchanges that accept smaller amounts, but you can expect a lower exchange rate. It's much better to ask for Bitcoin LN for small amounts.

Would it even be possible to prove the theft in front of a judge? You'd have to find a judge who understands Bitcoin and collectibles, or get a credible expert to explain it. You'd also have to prove yogg (and not someone else) emptied the collectibles. I'm not a lawyer, but it looks tricky to provide evidence where the online world touches the real world.

If it's any consolation: sending such small amounts to your own wallet also means you'll lose a significant part of it when you want to send it. Transaction fees are still quite high, and you're basically sending dust.

It's best to avoid receiving such small amounts in Bitcoin, and I don't mind if exchanges try to discourage it. A better solution would be to charge a fee for small deposits, although one could argue the current fee is up to 0.0002 BTC.

If you can pull this off with honest reviews, I'm all for it! The one thing I don't like about BestChange is that they allow each exchange to censor their negative feedback. It's going to be tough though to decide which feedbacks are honest and which ones are fake.

I made a backup, see [get yours] Images from imgur + All links to your own posts.
In your case: tmp.loyce.club/imagebackup/1000199.html (351 MB .zip).

So offline signing in Electrum Forks should work. But you'll need some Forkcoin dust to avoid replay protection. Without that, chances are several of your Forks end up on the wrong chain on your Ledger, and getting them back would require getting the private key out of your Ledger. That involves risks, so just avoid it

By including some dust (a small amount) that only exists on one chain in your Forkcoin transaction, you make sure it can't be replayed on another chain.

That's not true (unfortunately). Bots have to follow the same rules as humans.
What Admin doesn't allow, is plagiarism. And pretending a spambot's output is your own is plagiarism.

I've never seen animated signatures.

Those aren't annoying at all, and it's really too bad that's not possible anymore. The heavily animated advertising had to spoil it for the rest.

That's possible, but wasn't the main goal. The only tiny improvement it can make is beat a human attacker if the attacker kept the second private key and not the original. I know that's a small chance.

The original time locked transaction can't be changed.

Correct.

That's not what I did. All it does is speed up the sweep time once the time lock expires.

The idea was to be able to do this:

So, in yogg's time locked case: You already have a time locked transaction, which can't be broadcasted yet. You use this transaction to create a child transaction that sends the funds to your own wallet (this transaction also can't be broadcasted yet).
Then, by trying to broadcast those transactions every minute, both will get broadcasted the moment it's possible and your funds are swept as fast as possible. And none of this is useful in cases where the scammer kept the private key which can bypass the time lock.
If you still have a future time lock pending, let's try this for real

This works, using Electrum. I tested it on Testnet.
Or this, although slightly more complicated, should work on Bitcoin Core.