https://github.com/bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib

Afaik this is the biggest and most maintained Bitcoin library for Javascript, and I saw it used in the wild many times. I even briefly used it myself for a small personal project, and found it pretty simple to use. They also give some important warning in their readme about using Bitcoin with Javascript, so definitely check that out.

My experience with banks so far is a lot better, my bank doesn't have any sort of account maintenance fees, transactions within the same bank or with other banks of my country are nearly instant, online shopping with foreign companies is also instant, I never encountered any errors/bugs/etc. One time they asked me to update my documents, I ignored them for 3 months and they still didn't close my account.

This is not to say that banks > Bitcoin, just want to point out that it can be very different from bank to bank and from country to country.

Yes, 50%+ accuracy assumes that a bot trades with a constant amount every time, if you have some complex strategy, then your performance can only be measured by the profit that it makes.

I'm really curious if such algorithm is able to predict huge movements, or if it's better for day trading with high frequency. And if it can do both, then which is better - waiting for a big shot, or steadily making profit every day?

Nothing can be 100% accurate, but you don't need to, as long as your accuracy is above 50% you will be making profit. And there already been some projects here that advertised trading bots based on machine learning, I think I saw some threads on the Project Development board, perhaps OP will be interested to look at them.

China has lied about their numbers and is still lying, way more people actually died. And they didn't even stop their epidemic yet, there were reports about the second wave recently.


All these ideas that the virus was created in a lab are just conspiracy theories, dozens of researchers independently claim that it comes from wild animals, there's zero evidence that it is artificial. It indeed came from wet markets, because that's were they sell freshly butchered wild animals.


It's reasonable to slowly relax the lockdown if your place is already past the peak new cases, which is happening in many European countries, but is probably not the case with Texas.


If you look at human history, countries almost never face any sort of consequences for their screw-ups, and the bigger the screw-up the lower the chance of it, especially if we are talking about a big player like China. To me this is the saddest part of this who story, China knows well what needs to be done to prevent these pandemics in the future, and they won't do it, because there's no consequences for causing hundreds of thousands of deaths globally.

The thing is, you don't know exactly how much miners are paying for electricity. Everyone just googles electricity prices for some region in hopes to estimate those values, but they may be very different from reality. Maybe some specific places have extremely low prices due to being close to some power plants, maybe some miners can bribe the local officials and get them a better deal, etc. This can easily explain why miners seem to be mining at a loss.

Be careful anyone who tries to solve this challenge, Ethereum is known for having honeypot contracts/addresses - something that looks vulnerable to hacking, but actually steals the money whenever you try to hack it. This challenge requires you to send your money to an address that immediately drains it, so don't send more ethers than you can afford to lose.

I'm not saying here that the OP is a scammer, maybe they just shared what they saw somewhere else, but anyway be careful.

MD5 is broken and it's trivial to construct files with the same hash by slightly changing a small amount of data appended to both files. Same happened with SHA-1, except it would still require a big chunk of processing power, unlike with MD5 which can be attacked in that way even on old CPU. But, MD5 still has pretty much full preimage resistance, meaning if you hash some data, the attacker would only be able to brute force it to try to find a message that hashes to the same hash value. This means that even with MD5 hash collisions effectively cannot be encountered accidentally.

Until there are known practical attacks against SHA-256, hash collisions are out of the question.

Crypto news sites love to create a narrative for explaining the recent price movements, and most of the time they are entirely wrong. In the past it has often been some global instability or some economic news, today it's the stimulus checks. One thing in common is that these articles never provide any good evidence, it's always just a conjecture coming from the writer, there's no quality data or research to back any of it up, it's just talk.

They will only have the same hash if either coinbase transactions are the same, or there is somehow a hash collision (the Universe will end sooner than that one happens). So, if coinbase transactions and all the other information is the same and the hash is the same, than it's the same block, it will propagate through the network like normal, there won't be any conflict. But it will never happen on practice, because too many things need to coincide - two independent miners will have to include the same transactions and make the same timestamp up to the smallest unit, and for some reason include the same coinbase transaction, and also find the same nonce - it's just impossible. But if you imagine it happening, it would be like two nodes on the network simultaneously broadcasting the same new block - the network doesn't care about such circumstances, it only cares that the blocks are valid.

How do you even start it? If creators move first, they will have to endure huge loses until their audience comes, many of whom might never follows, and also creators' subscriber growth will be greatly reduced, because a decentralized platform will have a fraction of Youtube's users, and there won't be any sort of advanced algorithm that matches viewers with new creators.

And if the users move first, then again why would creators move to a minority platform if they can stay on Youtube and keep making more money.

Right now Youtube is an undisputed monopolist of mainstream video hosting, even centralized competitors are miles behind it, so what chance do the decentralized ones really have? I think they will keep being a small niche tool for people who need their exact properties like censorship resistance.

I think 1000 buys estimate is way too generous, if it's 0.1% of total daily deposit + buys, it means that 1 million people buy Bitcoin every day. So even if with this unrealistic number the amount of people who used stimulus checks is still small, then the real number is even smaller.

People should learn from this whole story that relative charts are very misleading and if someone hides the absolute numbers, it's because they have something to hide.

As with always with these types of claims, the question is not whether it happens or not, but in what quantity. If 50-100 people or even a few thousands out of 328 million nation do this, is that really significant? It's like when some article says that "twitter is angry about something", and then it's actually just a couple of tweets from some nobodies.

The problem here is that some less experienced people might start having unrealistic expectations about the market, they will start thinking that events like US stimulus can move Bitcoin's price significantly and predictablym which is really wrong.

If they wanted it, then they would have done it, they could have easily banned all the big channels, the smaller ones would leave on their own due to the loss of revenue, and Youtube could even run their algorithms to automatically delete crypto videos. And nothing about it would have been illegal, because it's their platform and they can delete any content they want.

But they don't do any of that, because they are not anti-crypto.

I have big doubts that anyone would bother to investigate a censorship attack, the authorities wouldn't even clearly see who is the victim, who is the culprit, what was the damage, and Bitcoin is a decentralized network, not a company that can go to court. In case with double spend, there will be a clear victim - an exchange or other service that lost millions of dollars worth of coins, and the attacker that made and then reversed a transaction.

It's a common misconception to think that 51% attack gives the attackers some god-level powers over the network. 51% actually only allows attackers to revert transactions by forking the blockchain from the earlier block, they can choose to mine empty blocks to effectively DDOS the network, or they can choose to censor certain addresses by refusing to include their transactions and forking whenever other miners do so. 51% attack can't change the rules of the network or do anything that breaks the rules, period.

So, is it a crime? The censorship attack would be the most unlikely to prosecuted as a crime, the DDOS is generally a crime, but I doubt it would viewed like that by authorities, but the last one, the double spending would have very high chances to being prosecuted if it will result in millions of dollars worth of coins being stolen. Authorities already go after Bitcoin thieves, and double-spending is just a type of robbery.

Youtube has capabilities to automatically take actions against videos and channels by analyzing their content, for example it quickly demonetizes videos that feature swastikas or other nazi symbolic, just because in the past there were incidents when advertisers had their ads placed on some neonazi propaganda videos. So, technically Youtube can run something similar against crypto channels, but I doubt that they are doing that right now. Maybe they will do it in the future though, but it won't necessary mean that they will try to censor all of crypto.

In the long run, the site's profit will be approaching 1% of the wagered amount, so with these rules investors will have 50% cut of it. In my eyes this is a good deal, as I personally don't care about the short-term variance, I'm hoping to have an open investment for as long as this option exists.

These investing rules may increase the risk for people who do some sort of short-term investing, but a short-term investing in gambling is a bad idea in the first place, and there's no good reason to do it.

This forum isn't the alpha and omega of Bitcoin knowledge, you can learn a lot about Bitcoin from reading good books, blog posts from experts, listening to podcasts or watching videos, or even reading bitcoin's developers mailing list.


You're assigning to Bitcoin properties that it doesn't have - it can't solve poverty or topple empires, it even struggles to achieve wider adoption first.

I personally don't care about any crypto youtubers, so many of them are actually promoting scams or just giving poor advice, they are the same as those low-quality Medium bloggers or crypto news sites writers. If youtube banned Andreas Antonopoulos, then I'd be quite frustrated, but as long as it's some nonames, I'm not going to grab a pitchfork.

And if these crypto guys are so cool, why don't they move to some decentralized video hosting service? They talk about crypto and blockchain, yet they still choose to stick with the centralized platform, because that's where the money is.