Wanna hear something tragic? Most people use Binance.

Binance, as always, misinforms everybody:
There isn't such thing as "withdrawal" on the Bitcoin network to be suspended. The only thing that's interrupted, beyond their users' privacy, is the withdrawal option in their platform.

I wouldn't say so. Charging 20k sats and broadcasting a 1 sat/byte transaction makes it even more ridiculous.

You have to create another transaction wherein you pay yourself all of your money minus 0.0026 BTC, which will go to the miner.

If your private keys start with "5", it means their public key is uncompressed. So, it's P2PKH. So make sure your wallet is not descriptor.

Why don't you loop importprivkey?

With RPC, it'd be:

Create a txt file and insert your private keys there like:

Now create this bash script. It reads every line of your text file and runs the curl command.

Replace USERNAME, PASSWORD and WALLET_NAME accordingly. On linux you can run it with:

---

---

I'd make sure I connect to my Bitcoin server via a secure transfer protocol, because there's sensitive info transferred.

No, you don't, that's required only if you want to run a non-pruned full node. You can just sync and verify everything without storing all the blocks and therefore, you can run a full node with only few gigabytes of space, which is pruning, that's told to you a page now.

You can't look up transactions of other people, but you can look up your transactions, which is the only thing that matters if you make personal use.

What's your problem exactly? I don't understand.

Except that you're provably traced. Believing that you're not traced because you've never been blackmailed shows how little things you know about privacy. There aren't many ways to hide. Transactions are public. There are companies that try to de-anonymize everyone 24/7/365.

There's nothing wrong with using a mixer, just as there's nothing wrong to CoinJoin, PayJoin, exchange BTC for XMR etc. Believing that mixing means breaking the law only reveals that you're an anti-privacy, anti-freedom meathead.

Which discloses, for once more, how desperately foolish you are when it comes to chain analysis. You don't have to state what's your address to have your privacy invaded. Just make a purchase and the service can trace you from your change.

You don't have to be a criminal to have something to hide. And you don't need to have something to hide to want privacy. People might want to preserve their privacy, because they have nothing to show as well.

With education. Sure, if a person doesn't care of having every right that's written in the first page infringed, wants to trade shitcoins, upload his documents, play with a x10 margin call, leave all of his coins to the exchange and so on, it's impossible to convince him do otherwise.

But, if he's interested into actually using bitcoin because of the fundamentals, he ought to opt himself out of this opaque, weak and corrupted exchanging system. Even if he's already left footprints. Better late than never.

Bump.

South Korean exchanges delist Litecoin, because consensus was found to implement the MimbleWimble upgrade. They're removing it, because they don't want your privacy, it can't become more clear than that. Same has happened with Monero. As it's already proved again, fungibility ≠ privacy.

It's time for the users to start delisting the exchanges.

I wouldn't say that's necessary if you're working on an open-source environment. Even a closed-source software will require permission to gain access.

Use Tor. Period.

If you use VPN alone, privacy isn't guaranteed. If you connect from Tor to the VPN, it's neither good, because your VPN provider knows what you're sending through Tor. If you connect from VPN to Tor, it's, again, worse than Tor alone, because whatever you do is known from your VPN.

Besides taint analysis and blockchain analysis, there's this "on-chain analysis" (not sure if it's part of the latter) wherein people try to figure out what's happening to the market based on what's happening to the chain, which is also pointless. If a whale wants to create panic, they only need to move their money across their own wallet.

You acknowledge it's a nonsense, with just a quick search.

No. Sense. 

No, it's not, at least that's my opinion. You don't give a solution to such political problem by improving privacy. Bitcoin's privacy isn't hurting its fungibility, centralized exchanges do. Not using those who treat it as non-fungible is a solution. Don't comply with their rules, and "taint coins" becomes a matter of the past. It's a nonsense either; a direct surveillant attack to you, along with KYC.

As a quote goes,

And so we do.

I think Adam decided to look into his and the devs' pockets, solely, because what he did is completely against the concept of mixing coins, enhancing privacy - Wasabi in general. Cooperating with a chain analysis company and blacklisting "illegal" outputs arbitrarily contradicts with the "Reclaim your privacy now" sign and their beliefs that privacy is a fundamental human right.

Those who need Wasabi the most can't, because those who need Wasabi the most are blacklisted. As I've already said,

And they haven't made it clear. They're really silent when it comes to this "new feature" they've added, for the sake of their... Well, pockets solely, again.

So, let's summarize. Private? I wouldn't say so; the coordinator works with the people who work day and night to de-anonymize you. Cheap? Well, now you're paying for your own surveillance, so no. Censorship resistant? Nope. Trustworthy developers? I wouldn't, personally, trust a person who officially sells my privacy out while, ironically, preserving it is the purpose of their project.

What is this supposed to mean? What happened to Wasabi's CoinJoin before this new update? Didn't it work properly? Do you admit there can't (or shouldn't?) be privacy in the real world, 'cause that's what it seems like?

"Stable coins" are the scamming part of the crypto space, because there's nothing stable to begin with; let alone decentralized and censorship resistant. Hold a stable coin and you have to trust the company that's responsible for their issuance and the monetary policy of the government that issues the currency the stable coin is "pegged to". Completely opaque and pointless.

The channel announcement message contains the funding transaction of the two nodes, a proof that the one node owns their key, another proof that the other node also owns their key, three of which are enough to verify they have coins in reserve.

The node, I deposit, constructed and gave me the signed closing-channel transaction that spends outputs that haven't yet been published. That's what I mean "beforehand"; before I even pay them, they've given me the right to take my money back.

---

If you want to continue this, use your thread and don't derail this.

Yes, but it doesn't change based on the demand, whereas in bitcoin if there's less demand, there's tendency to drop its cost of production too, and dozens of other factors similar to gold. The significant part is that gold's cost is not related with its demand; definitely not directly connected.

Difficulty is rather a long-term parameter. Ten years ago, you could mine a block with a GPU. Currently that's definitely not feasible. That's because of the demand. On the other hand, gold, while not varying much from its 2012's market value, has still the same cost, regardless of its demand.

But, yeah, what does that idiot, alt-girl has to provide to this discussion anyways? 

But, you do try to double-spend money. The fact the transaction isn't included in a block, yet, doesn't make that not true. If somebody had accepted your 0-conf transaction, and you paid a miner to reverse it, you will have essentially gained the chance to spend the money again.

And it is dishonest if you ask me. You've marked your transaction as "non-RBF". This means that, besides your word, a merchant can sleep easy that there won't be nodes that will relay a transaction that double-spends. Reversing that transaction is like cheating the network. If you wanted to have the option to double-spend, you should have opted-in RBF.

If you want to speed up a non-RBF transaction, utilize child-pays-for-parent.

But, there's not a nearly invariable ultimate bottom in bitcoin, that's what I pointed out. Difficulty adjustments change that temporary bottom every 2 weeks, but difficulty adjustments are affected by demand. It is, therefore, clear that the demand does affect the minimum cost, which doesn't happen with any other commodity or asset.

As you rightly said, there's a bottom value for gold, houses etc., but not for bitcoin. And I think you agree with me here:

Isn't it more proper to say that there's cost? There's no "hidden value line", it just costs $X to mine gold, it costs $Y to make a house, it costs a frequently variable amount of money to mine a bitcoin.

But, the mining and acquisition costs in bitcoin depend (although not solely) on the demand. Difficulty does change according to the demand. Mining bitcoin isn't the same as mining gold, and therefore not a good example of the "minimum price", which is, as said, the cost.

Everything, by the same reasoning, is backed by demand. Houses, stocks, bonds, metals, food, guns, vehicles, goods etc., everything.

Again, that's true for everything. If there's no demand for a thing, it has no value.

It's already treated as currency.

Bitcoin isn't always exchanged for fiat. As said, it's a currency.

I'm temporarily removing my avatar and personal text. At least until I see some activity.

Just because you can't achieve 100% anonymity, which is natural since there isn't such thing as completely anonymous but levels of anonymity, it doesn't mean they're utopias. You can and should try to hide, protect yourself from surveillance, as much as possible, for your own good. If you've given up with this, you wouldn't mind sharing your real name, home address and phone number on an internet board.

But, you won't.

No, you didn't. I just cleared it up.