"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.

Pseudo-anonymity doesn't have to do with KYC, though. If your merchant requires you to give him personal info to make a purchase with cash and you're obtuse enough to give it to him, it doesn't worsen cash's anonymity. Because privacy invasion happens outside the transaction.

Same goes for bitcoin. Pseudo-anonymity is on-chain traceability.

Yes, but Monero is much less adopted. Better go with bitcoin, wherein you gain a decent, acceptable level of privacy and have lots of merchants to choose from. Utilize coin control and mixing.

Here's some good replacements:

• Google search with DuckDuckGo.
• Android with CalyxOS or GrapheneOS.
• Google Chrome with Mozilla Firefox plus some extensions like uBlock Origin. If you're willing to sacrifice speed for privacy, go with Tor, even better.
• Gmail with Protonmail.
• Windows with Linux Mint. Tails is an even better OS, but not an alternative for a local, personal computer.

Privacy is underrated. If it was overrated, people would care. They don't.

Any difference to who? To Meta, Microsoft, Google etc.? No, it doesn't make any difference. To your life? It does.

Always has been... 

Perhaps in another galaxy, but not in the Milky Way. 1,000,000,000 is 100 quadrillion times bigger than 0.00000001.

0.00000001 BTC, or 1 sat in short, is currently valuated at 0.0003 USD. This means that, for each of the smallest unit of USD you give, which is 0.01 USD (or 1 cent in short), you can buy 33 sats. It's definitely "affordable".

There isn't always a reason. The creator chose it, the users agreed with it, there's no reason to change now there's consensus. Setting a coinbase maturity to 100 is an exaggeration, but it makes sure that if a deep chain reorganization occurs, the transactions that spend the coinbase outputs are invalidated, which is needed.

It seemed useful with the value overflow incident as it reorged by 53 blocks.

Bisq is user friendly. Sure, it's a lot more simple to register on Binance, understand there's a CEO that runs this thing, just like any other account you've made on the internet, deposit money and have your assets exchanged than installing a software, reading how it works and comprehending the advantages.

But, if you're not here willing and disciplined to learn more in the first place, you've already started going in the wrong path of this revolutionary space.

But, they can't, because there's money that satisfies needs you can't even imagine doing in the traditional financial system.

Cash is also used by innocent people. It won't be banned because of terrorism. It'll be banned to make privacy invasion as much effective as possible. In other words, to control.

That's just one's opinion.

They've tried to do that in the past a gazillion times, yet, I can still use bitcoin to purchase many stuff.

Direct settlements with bitcoin cannot be prohibited in the same way cryptography cannot be prohibited.

But, if they get burned, it doesn't make sense to recreate them later. They are either removed from circulation or not.

I'm highly against this. If miners start rejecting transactions they don't like, despite according to their fee rate, we would no longer have censorship resistance. Furthermore, bringing these old coins into circulation, again, would either increase the supply or make them double-spent. In either case, it'd only be bad for bitcoin.

Central bank does fully control cash, since it fully controls the supply. Sure, it doesn't know who pays who, but monopolizing people's money is entire control.

You can't know what I exchange, unless there's an intermediary involved. Same goes for cash, bank accounts, poker stars credit points, anything that's treated as money. However, electronic money, such as bank account, does violate your privacy.

No, it wouldn't. Even if we assume they somehow traced everyone who's going to trade their E-USD for BTC, and froze their accounts, which is impossible but say if, there's still a pretty strong economy build on top of bitcoin. There are people, me included, who use bitcoin as a currency. Also, this dictating attitude would push many into using money that is censorship resistant.

The proof that there's work remains, though. Maybe taking a block as an example is a bad analogy, because one might mine easier than another sometimes, but the difficulty is a humanly insusceptible parameter that reveals with quite certainty that there's work.

From a quick -getinfo, it's 29897409688833.63. You can't fake that, nor can you drop it by 90%* by any chance, due to the abrupt exposure of average accuracy. There's a specific work devoted, that's publicly known, miners who thrive to finding a valid hash, ASICs in limited supply. The ability for someone who "has not worked for it" to get such vanity address, AKA PoW, is very small, but less than the ability to reward themselves more than it currently has, especially at the time it firstly received coins.

Chances aren't 0%, but it's 100% pointless.

---

So, people who use PayPal can now move a thing they didn't have before to begin with. Great move.

Misinformation, ignorance, arrogance.

Not if they need PayPal to move them. 

WIF is an encoded format; it doesn't tell you the functions that were called before that. Just like in base64, base58 etc., you just represent the same binary data in another way. A decoded WIF gives you: prefix + private_key + is_compressed + checksum.

The SHA256(phrase's bytes) gives you the ECDSA private key.

---

---

Why do you search for double hashes? Brainwalletx uses single hash. It's justified that you found no transactions.