May I assume you've installed Electrum on your main computer, that's internet connected, contains the other software you daily use and so on? If that's so, you should move to an air-gap device. Like, get a laptop you don't use, boot an open-source OS after you've verified its authenticity (preferably Tails that comes with Electrum), remove the Wi-Fi card and don't connect to the internet. Generate your wallet.

If you don't want to mess with this or don't have a laptop spared, buy a hardware wallet such as Trezor. There are many alternatives.

It'll definitely be messed up, but not random, or at least not as much as in other ways. There's a significant percentage of the human factor, how does your hand move, which shapes will you think of, at which rate will you repeat the shame shapes etc. It's the same as the mouse detector RNG of bitaddress.org.

That's the best I can do is: Take few dices, put them on a cup, start mixing them, verify that they're fair, redo it to generate entropy for the seed.

Yes. Bitcoin, just like any other useful innovation, uses energy. But, why now, Wikipedia?

Agreed, but there's no point to compare bitcoin or gold mining with healthcare, the building sector and land, air & sea transport; this is clearly a mixed bag. One might say reckless whataboutism.

Perhaps a tidy email can work? It's ironic that most of the links in their bitcoin page state the opposite.

If you want to listen only to onion incoming connections, then perhaps you should set listenonion=1 to bitcoin.conf (along with onlynet=onion). I'm not sure what's the problem, but I've set this to my node and I'm completely isolated from ipv4.

What are the tradeoffs? I don't understand. If they want to escape from the centralized exchange for a while, deposit coins on their Wasabi, mix them using the censoring coordinator to make a few transactions and return to the centralized exchange, then it's meaningless. Their money is analyzed by chain analysis companies, which are likely cooperating with every centralized exchange out there.

Again, an employer isn't going to look into the chain. They'll probably just give a call to Chainalysis, Elliptic etc., and they'll happily assist their new customer. But, if they don't use a centralized exchange neither do they pass the arbitrary output test of the coordinator, then they'll likely get the obfuscation they want.

In the end, if the coordinator or their analyzing company isn't cooperating with centralized exchanges, who tells you they won't consider those "taint"? The problem begins from centralized exchanges. There are no tradeoffs; if they remain to Coinbase, Binance, Kraken etc, it's a loss-loss situation.

Then you're naive, no offense. We live in the age of information where everyone wants personal data. It's as valuable as money, because it gives you control. When you have millions of people's KYC data such as passports, driver licenses, pictures, phone numbers, email addresses etc., you can sell it to advertisers, chain analysis companies, other private companies, politicians, literally everyone. And do it again, and again, and again. There's no limit to reselling data.

Not only do they release their data once requested, but they are also getting breached very often. When you use such service, you should take it for granted that they will do these things, no doubt.

It already is, it's just not 100%. The reason he no longer accepts bitcoin is clearly not because of this. His agenda, back then, had a dog face. So, he will either accept it again, after he's failed with the dog coin and since he's invested billions to bitcoin, or he'll just keep it suspended. I bet the former. Also, he said that Dogecoin is a less environmentally damaging asset than bitcoin while it's a fork of it. This utter nonsense confirms he's behaving manipulatively.

Ultimately, he accepted bitcoin, then bought a shitload of bitcoins, then stated that it's suspended as it's not working ethically enough (?) and moved towards dogecoin. Come on, be serious.

First of all, describe the function. Later, answer the following:

• Why should we have two mechanisms? Why shouldn't we remove mining and replace it with your function instead?
• What's the incentive of those who protect the network? At the moment, the more the computational power, the more the income. What's the former in your mechanism?
• How will you produce consensus if you don't use Proof-of-Work?

Neither do I, but they seem happy. I agree with your PoV, though.

You mean unspent transaction output?

If you don't use RBF, then the nodes should not accept your second transaction as it tries to double-spend the previous outputs, something you've stated you don't want in your first transaction.

A very simple question.

Should I, as a citizen, be concerned about what's happening to the world? I know I don't feel right when I ignore society's problems as I might have my rights infringed. But, I look around some of my people who're ignorant and they seem happy. Is this constant concern beneficial, after all?

This is known as child-pays-for-parent. If transaction A is stuck in the mempool and can't be bumped with RBF, you can broadcast transaction B, with a higher fee, that spends A's outputs and incentivizes the miner to include both.

The way I understand it is that you have only one condition to check each time. Not 42,201,340.

Finding a collision of any of the millions of addresses is definitely more easier than finding a collision of a specific address, but I'm not sure that attacking the former is easier. To do the former, you need to calculate a hash and then check the entire UTXO set, while in the latter, you only calculate the hash and check a single condition.

Large images and double posts do harm the discussion, but a mile long quote must become criminal offense. This is seriously annoying. One creates a thread, regarding an important matter and then boom, shitposter awakes and quotes the entire damn thing.

Also, cut the crap with "Res" under the OP. If you want to say something, say it.

Or, a better proposal: Have the ANN thread's link in both sides.

I wonder what was the bribe. Probably paid in BSV. 

He then regretted for stating this BS, but I can't find the blog post.

And we're telling you, a page now, that what you're describing is oxymoron. On the one hand, they want to obfuscate their outputs so they can hide their purchases from their wives and employers. On the other, they'll deposit their coins to centralized exchanges, because... They're clueless?

If they use Binance, Coinbase, Kraken etc., they should expect that all of their info, such as personal info, transactions, trades, is sold straight to chain analysis companies. If an employer wants to know their employees' activity, they don't need to mess with the chain at all; a phone call to Chainalysis is enough. This is what they do. Their customers are government agencies, financial institutions, cryptocurrency businesses.

There's no purpose in mixing your coins if you're going back to a centralized exchange.

Who told you that the fee is huge? A custodial service? Which wallet do you use? We can't help you if you don't provide additional information.

Nonsense. They do it to make money. You can have a transaction confirmed with just 1 sat/vByte currently, but they'll keep charging unbelievably high fees thanks to your ignorance.

In contrast with Wasabi, wherein to mix, you need to pass the legal-UTXO test? Disgrace. At least in Samourai you can run your own node and avoid handing out your master public key if that's the only problem; you're sure you're having your outputs mixed.

Beyond that, they're working with chain analysis companies, treating bitcoin as non-fungible while that's the promising point of their project. It's confirmed that they did this voluntarily to protect their operation to make money. Whoever mixes with their coordinator pays for their monitoring. Completely untrustworthy individuals.