Yes, it's due to Satogram, a kind-of ad broadcaster that reaches nearly the entire lightning network.

They don't need an invoice to send you satoshi. Anyone can send you satoshi over lightning by just having your node ID and keysend. If you're running LND, you can disable receiving that way with "accept-amp=false".

I wouldn't do it, if I were you. Just like email spam, but you're getting paid. 

I already know that this username was a bad choice. You don't have to remind me.  

---

Edit:
I think you're overestimating the government's effectiveness. Have you been inside a government-owned department? Government people are little different than ordinary people. They're looking on how to make money, just like the rest of us. Their willing to benefit the country collectively (if any) is secondary. Attacking Bitcoin is, hopefully for the last time, one big financial suicide. Be it now or 10 years ago. Even low-value altcoins do not experience 51% attacks, unless one big hash power holder wants to reverse transactions (again, for profit).

And also,

Alright, maybe now the username is spot on!  

Why does the IRS ask you to provide data that you don't collect?

Coinjoin participants use separate Tor identities by default. Look on the code I've linked above. They'd have to deliberately mess with the source code of Sparrow or Whirlpool-cli to not use separate identities.

First of all, there is no exit node, because you're connecting to a hidden service, not to the clearnet: https://github.com/sparrowwallet/nightjar/blob/08fd60cd5256ce4842701c6c179c18f997fd252f/src/main/java/com/samourai/whirlpool/client/wallet/beans/WhirlpoolServer.java#L19.

Secondly, just because there is no "Tor management interface", it doesn't mean you can't have different identities. If you have the option to establish connection with Tor, then you also have the option to re-establish it under new circuit, therefore under new identity, which is literally what Sparrow is doing: https://github.com/sparrowwallet/nightjar/blob/08fd60cd5256ce4842701c6c179c18f997fd252f/src/main/java/com/samourai/whirlpool/client/mix/dialog/MixSession.java#L265.

Who's selling two days before the halving?

Well, yeah, but neither of these are amnestic, as in Tails. In case of physically compromising your device, sensitive data could be derived from an attacker.

Sure.

Suppose your device is malware affected, such that when Electrum is requested to be loaded in memory, the malware replaces its binaries with a compromised version of Electrum. In this version, signing transactions does not follow the RFC 6979 standard, but instead, picks a random k value within a small range of numbers that only the attacker knows. Now you can sign transactions, it will feel as everything is okay, but when the transaction is broadcasted, the attacker can work out the private key by continuously brute forcing the k value in that small range, and double-spend the inputs of your unconfirmed transaction. 

Being open-source and amnestic are the primary reasons you should use Tails for the OS of your airgapped computer. Privacy is a byproduct of these.

If the computer is airgapped, then you should have already taken care of physically removing the components that would allow it to connect to any network.

In addition to Z-tight's response, the answer to the question "Can my crypto asset get stolen in an airgapped, malware infected device?", is yes. One simple way for a malware to accomplish it, is that when the time comes and you sign a transaction from the airgapped device, without your knowledge, you sign a transaction with broken cryptography which can be claimed by the attacker.

Have you tried checking a few of its addresses on a block explorer, to confirm it does have funds? You can open the wallet.dat in Bitcoin Core (QT) and select addresses or generate new. Alternatively, you can open the wallet.dat in a text editor and find Bitcoin addresses generated inside. Make sure you backup wallet.dat, and when visiting the block explorer, use Tor.

It is not recommended to check it this way, and you can't be absolutely certain. I'd just buy a cheap USB 64 GB stick if I were you, enable pruning, and point my data dir there.

- Bitcoin Core requires just 2 GB of RAM, and about 700 GB for storage, which can be reduced by more than 90% if you enable pruning (with pruned=550).
- How bad Internet connection? Downloading 700 GB shouldn't take more than two days, even in cases with very slow download speed.

I wouldn't experiment with my money, if I were you (it is clear that you don't know what you're doing). You used Bitcoin Core to receive the bitcoin, use it again to recover it.

There is one more major issue with Proof-of-Stake. Stakers can hold a piece of the "pie" forever. In Proof-of-Work, if you own 1 EH/s, then you own 0.1% of the hashrate, hereby 0.1% of the "pie". However, if more miners join, and hashrate increases, then your fraction of the pie gets less. You cannot indefinitely own a constant fraction of the pie, as opposed to Proof-of-Stake, where owning 1% of the staked coins gets you always 1% of the votes.

There is absolutely no relation between Proof-of-Work and clogged mempool.

Έχουν υποφέρει από "συμφόρηση"... Μάλιστα. Θες να μας μιλήσεις στα αγγλικά να συνεννοηθούμε ή θα συνεχίσεις με Google Translate / ChatGPT;

Δεν είναι ξεπερασμένη άποψη. Τα αποκεντρωμένα συστήματα είναι εφιάλτης απόδοσης. Δε μπορεί blockchain να κάνει scale στον main layer, εκτός κι αν οι χρήστες εμπιστεύονται τρίτους να τους σερβίρουν την πληροφορία, το οποίο αντιφάσκει με το όλο concept.

100 TB; Ναι, είναι ακριβό. Επίσης, δεν είναι μόνο το κόστος του storage, αλλά και το κόστος του verification. Εδώ στο Bitcoin, με μόλις 4 MB blocks, το initial block download παίρνει κοντά σε μια με δύο βδομάδες, αν είναι δυνατό το μηχάνημα που τρέχει το Bitcoin node. Στο Solana τελειώνει ποτέ άραγε το syncing;

Αλλά μάλλον στον τοίχο μιλάω.

42 - thanks!

I'll choose 62, thanks!

Οι σκέψεις μου είναι πως είσαι ένα spam bot που γράφεις σε local boards για να κάνεις shill το Solana.

Αν απ' την άλλη θες μια πιο δυνατή απάντηση, τότε θα σου πω πως το Solana, όπως κάθε άλλο shitcoin, δεν είναι decentralized, και το development του βασίζεται σε μια ομάδα που κατέχει και τα περισσότερα stakes. Πέρα απ' το ότι είναι Proof-of-Stake (που είναι τα θεμέλια του centralization), το blockchain του Solana ξεπερνάει τα 100 TB, κάνοντας το BSV να μοιάζει με decentralized: https://solana.stackexchange.com/a/149. Επίσης το δίκτυο έπεσε αρκετές φορές στο παρελθόν από bot attacks.

And tell them what? To which pool they're not allowed to mine?

I still don't see what difference it will make if a few large hash power holders "bend their knew". There's still hash power that is not under their control, and as long as the mining farms don't attempt suicide by intentionally reorging, there cannot be censorship.

Off-topic, but how many times have we made this conversation? I get a deja-vu. Probably more than five.

Attacking the network is a financial suicide. That's what happens. Is it possible to happen? Of course. Is it probable? I'd say no. Do the pro-censorship pools have to retain this attack forever? Yes. The conclusions yours.

Don't give up!

Pools is not their problem. It's miners who own the hash power. They can shut down the top 4 pools, and they'd have only achieved a temporary network interruption. And since they can't break into places and shut down mining farms, then they can't stop what's happening.

In the worst case scenario, where the world government starts shutting down every miner website, we can still migrate to decentralized mining, with P2Pool. It's not popular, because centralized pools are more convenient, but it works. Monero already uses it to decentralize its hash power: https://p2pool.io/#pool.

Un-stop-pa-ble.

You mean, "The mining pool: Yes sir!". As far as the miners are concerned, they're incentivized to mine on the most profitable pool, which is the one that censors no transaction.

The top 4 pools as we speak mine about 75% of the blocks. This means that even if 4 pools started censoring transactions based on federal orders, there would still be 1 in 4 blocks that would ignore all the censorship bullshit. And at this point, the pro-censorship pools would have just accomplished loss without censoring anything.

I guess, we will never find out. Perhaps the software might flag it as "naughty" and it might be verifiable in the client's debug log, but it doesn't matter much, because the coordinator could have blacklist it and blame it to connection issues.

I mean, I know. TDev is a jerk. I once tried to make a question in their Telegram, and the guy censored my messages simply because they had already been answered years ago, aka "use the search". And yes, in every coinjoin implementation there's "coin ban". If you start DDoSing, or provide invalid signatures, then the coordinator is programmed to ban you. That's entirely different and understandable. The problem comes when you censor based on ethics.

The difference is that shutting down a mining farm or two doesn't really influence the Bitcoin network, whereas in 99.9% of DeFi, there's a small group of people behind the "DAO" that has significant control over the decision-making processes.

I highly doubt it. The administrators of this place have been identified, as far as I know, and if bitcointalk turned into a darknet site, then the 1226 BTC in forum reserves could be confiscated by the authorities.

78, 88.

Thanks!