Not sure if you answer on whether privacy is both good and bad. As far as I read, you only say that Bitcoin makes people financial sovereigns of themselves.

What do you see? Judging by the fact that the majority hasn't yet understood what's self-custody and why you shouldn't leave coins on centralized exchanges I'm going to say a big no, they don't. And most will never do.

But, let cryptocurrencies off the table. The mass, which mirrors society, ignores completely that their privacy is demanded. The mass doesn't care. The mass wants to show everybody what they're eating, when and where they're eating it, if they've gone to a luxurious hotel, if they're at the beach, if they're dressed nicely, if they're looking for a relationship etc.

We've passed the part where they don't care about their privacy. People in current societies want to share the moments which were considered private in the past.

That. These too-good-to-be true, promising statements should not be taken with held breath as the shops don't always behave same like those people say and if they do, their Bitcoin integration is prohibited outside the United States etc.

I do hope, though, that this huge adoption, as that's how it was represented in the conference, will come to Europe too. I can't look forward to paying a Crispy McBacon over Tor.

Sure, it's oxymoron and there's no essential utility unless one wants to store all the outputs, but no blocks for some reason. That reason could perhaps be to run an SPV server with less expense?

If you don't want to store everything, but verify everything for your own good: Run a pruned node.
If you don't care of storing everything or you want to go beyond personal use: Run a non-pruned node.

Is this purposefully awful? With all the respect.

I thought Bitcoin Cash was green. Anyway, yes, everything related with Bitcoin Cash reminds Bitcoin somewhat. 

What's the problem with keeping everyone's UTXOs and dumping the blocks? I'm just saying that you can have the same benefits even if you're planning to run an SPV server, without keeping the entire chain, but only the outputs.

Sure, if it's personal use set it to 0.

Edit: My bad. You're right. I hadn't ever tried it, to be honest, but I thought it would work. Could you explain me why a pruned node can't index all the transactions? The blocks/index is less than 40 GB and it could be used if one wanted to run an SPV server.

Not wanting true decentralization doesn't mean hell-bent to lose self-custody. I believe the majority of the users, excluding those who're here just to trade, use SPV clients as it's the easiest solution with the least risks.

Those who leave them on centralized exchanges haven't understood what they've bought either way.

I think the storage cost has little matter. Running non-pruned full nodes definitely helps the network, but if the user doesn't want to buy an extra hard drive, they can enjoy the same features by running a pruned node with txindex=1.

Adding more shitposts of that asshole:

Just because you don't scam people it doesn't mean you're trustworthy. You may had said that you're a child porn seller; it wouldn't matter if you were honest with your trades or not. That, alone, would immediately make me include you to my distrust list.

Same goes for account selling. Account farmers fill this place with garbage.

We call "Pizza day" the day that Bitcoin was used as a medium of exchange for the first time. We also made it official to celebrate January 3rd, as it was the day Satoshi mined the genesis block. But, to do the same for their birthday, posts, emails, transactions, the whitepaper etc., is an exaggeration. Don't you think?

If it's true, he's 47 right now. That's not very young.

Let alone that if it hasn't even shown a sign of weakness, as ECDLP has, it won't do any good all. No one tells us that the new algorithm won't become weak in few decades, but the system will get less efficient. There's also the temporary community upheaval asides.

You make it sound as if it's mostly the users' fault. Sure, there's definitely responsibility individually, but what would you expect if I was the CEO of the most popular exchange? What if I portrayed Bitcoin as a way to make a quick lolly and had excessively good traffic and advertising in social media and search engines?

That being said, add that governments constantly try to brainwash everyone. They say that it's a direct threat to the economy, but in reality, it's direct threat to their control. When was the time when Christine Lagarde stated that cryptos are not currencies? Didn't the commercial banks send to everyone that they should not use cryptos as they're financially risky investments? How many times has the cyber crime secretary scared everyone for the volatility and the criminal usage?

This is not so simple. If a quarter of the total merchants accept Bitcoin using BitPay or Coinbase etc., you're unable to use many services. Same happens with Tor; you're excluded by many websites. Is that due to some government order, is it due to the fact that they feel they're fighting spam, whatever, you have this drawback.

If you don't care neither about those then it won't take long until you start living outside society.

Not that I'm a genius when it come to hash functions, but wouldn't it be much more likely to have 160-bit collisions (from RIPEMD-160) first? I remember reading that SHA2 is more computationally expensive than RIPEMD-160. That would mean drastic measures way before 256-bit hashing algorithms become weak.

Multi-sig Pay-to-Witness-Scripts are SHA256 encoded with bech32. SHA256 is also used in address generation of every other address type, although the 256-bit number that is resulted from it is then hashed with RIPEMD-160. This shouldn't change unless RIPEMD-160 became weak. Then, it's the Lightning Network.

I have a feeling that it won't be that hard. As far as I know, Bitcoin has had a hard fork only once, with the value overflow incident, but if it's a necessity (as it was in 2010), I believe consensus will be found.

In other words: If it's favoring every user, it's reasonable to assume that there won't to be a lot of noise. If we're bordering on benefits, such as back then with the block size war, it's going to be tough.

There are two choices.

• We leave them untouched, which means they can be taken by those who own the required computational power.
• We announce that SHA256 will not be recognizable by the hard-forked client after block x. This could leave few years for their owners to upgrade to a collision-safe algorithm. Those who had lost access to them or wouldn't want to upgrade for some reason, would have them removed from the hard-forked Bitcoin's circulation.

Of course and you should use an exchange, but it doesn't have to be a centralized one. Use decentralized exchanges; there's no privacy invasion, no extraordinary fees, no KYC nonsense, no middlemen who own your money.

One with good reputation is Bisq.

You can't shut down a revolution safely. That's why it's a revolution. 

Next.

I'm interested in the Bitcoin Discussion board, but your shit thread keeps coming up.

It depends on how you understand incorrectness. If you take the time to read the entire thread, which is not recommended unless you have nothing better to do, you'll realize that he's an obtuse who thinks he's proved that every crypto user, from regular forum users to geniuses, have gone nuts.

He's also a sock puppet[1][2][3].

[1] Antithesis
[2] antikvark
[3] fxsurfer

Satoshi is a lying bastard, we're all idiots who use something that doesn't exist, you're a very smart person who has never had alt accounts. Have I forgotten anything? Oh, right, and debt-based broken money FTW.

Can you get the hell outta here now?

Loycev.club and Ninjastic.space would certainly. As you said, I have no worries judging by the forum's reserves.

That opens up a long discussion. I was also interesting in tackling the spam, but this forum is known for the freedom it seeks. Cutting off the bounties must have been one of the most much-discussed topics in Meta.

In summary, that's why:

Yes, which of course happens automatically in the back end. Once you generate your private key the software forms the [prefix, private_key, checksum] and converts that series to base58.

What do you mean what's the most important factor? Mainnet's prefix is 0x80 and Testnet's 0xEF; it's just a way to make WIFs distinguish. Those that start with "K" or "L" are Mainnet's compressed keys while those that start with "c" are Testnet's compressed keys.

Check the symbol chart: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Base58Check_encoding#Base58_symbol_chart

It's the first 4 bytes of the SHA256 of the SHA256 of your private key.

It detects if you've written it down correctly. If you make a mistake in your 32 bytes private key, the checksum will be invalid which will make the WIF invalid. If you write the checksum incorrectly, the WIF will be invalid. In both cases, it's because there's mismatch between the SHA256(SHA256(private_key)) and the checksum.

Είναι προφανές ότι θα δώσεις περισσότερα χρήματα στα mining rigs για να παράξεις BTC σε αντίθεση με το να αγοράσεις απευθείας BTC. Το πρώτο όμως σου υπόσχεται παθητικό εισόδημα (όποιο κι αν είναι) ενώ το δεύτερο μόνο ανατίμηση του κεφαλαίου σου.

Θα ήταν καλό αν έχει δοκιμάσει κανείς από δω με ηλιακά πάνελς, να μας πει αν αξίζει.

As said, that's what happens.

When someone creates a transaction and funds one of your addresses, they create a UTXO, which stands for Unspent Transaction Output. The more the inputs you have (which are essentially your UTXOs), the more expensive it'll be to spend them all.

Also note that if you use Segwit, it'll come cheaper.