Why is Segwit in the first picture? It didn't create a chain split, it was a protocol upgrade for Bitcoin. You start to mix up things when you try to talk about forked coins, then switch to software forks - Bitcoin had many more hard and soft forks that didn't create new cryptocurrencies.

Also, there's a ton of coins from early days that didn't fork Bitcoins blockchain and started from their own genesis block, but had very similar code to Bitcoin, so they too can be considered Bitcoin forks in a sense that they were software forks.

Can you analyze to what sort of addresses did you receive that dust? Was that the addresses that you used to withdraw from some exchanges? If so, can you tell from which exchanges? Or was it some other services? Or maybe addresses that were never used (but how it can even possibly happen?)? Maybe we can get some idea who is behind this dusting if we try to start tracking them.

It's really hard to do this, because you'd need to change the mainstream media themselves:

1. They often take money or are owned by the elite, and the elite is not interested in seeing Bitcoin succeed.
2. Mainstream media love negative news, they know that they generate much more clicks than positive news.

But if you want to cover Bitcoin in a way that could appeal to everyone, you can avoid saying that it's a tool for dismantling fiat money and banks, and instead say that it's a currency with low fees, global transactions without borders, instant microtransactions (LN), etc.

CWS, Ver, McAfee - can we just stop making news out of these people's tweets and statements? Who cares what they think, they don't decide anything in Bitcoin's ecosystem, they can only influence their shitcoins, because they have created them as a tool for their pump and dump schemes. You only help them maintain their popularity even if you report only negative news about them.

This is worrying, because if it will become a major trend among the exchanges, it would be quite hard to deal with. DEXs are not ready to handle all the users, as they are still in development, and liquidity would greatly suffer, because bank transactions have high fees, especially if they are international, and also have all this AML stuff when amounts are large enough.

I think a lot of Bitcoin's success can be attributed to the fact that it can easily be swapped for fiat money, now imagine Bitcoin economy nearly fully isolated from fiat - that would be seriously bad.

Should have ended here. If a person things that activities with negative expected value can be considered a source of income, their opinion can be safely discarded, as it clearly demonstrates that they have no clue of what they are talking about.

OP's post is a good example for showing that newbies shouldn't trust everything what they read, even if the author sounds like they know things, there's plenty of bad advice around.

There's a lot of other advantages to keeping quiet about your coins - you'll be less likely to get robbed, or attract unwanted attention from officials, and you won't have to experience your family and friends begging you for money once Bitcoin reaches moon, like it happens with lottery winners. Plus you won't be held responsible for any mistakes those people make if they will decide to start with Bitcoin because of you.

I just tested merit notification and it works, I also received some yesterday and I checked my logs and see that notifications about your merit were successfully sent. The next time you will send merit to someone, could you please for a moment subscribe to that name and see if you'll receive a notification? Could be some problem with frontend, or with the browser.

What is the biggest amount you ever going to send in a single transaction? If Bitcoin would reach $100,000, would you send all 5 BTC in one transaction to an exchange to sell them? Conventional wisdom proves that you can never go wrong witch splitting your transactions into smaller batches - this way if you encounter a scam exchange, or you'll get blocked for KYC, or if there's a security breach, or you make a mistake and get phished - in all those cases, splitting your transaction would make you lose only a part of your money.

So, if you, let's say plan to sell exactly 0.5 BTC at a time, then it would make sense to hold your UTXO's in those amounts, since you would pay the same fee as if you had only 1 UTXO but was sending multiple transactions. Of course having only 1 UTXO allows greater flexibility, but having many UTXO and in different wallet files could boost your security. 5 BTC is a large sum, if I owned that much, I would worry about security much more than about potential fees.

There already is opendime which achieves exactly that, though it's a small device rather than just a piece of paper. Anyway, there are some fundamental problems - the security is only as good as the device itself - and with big enough incentive eventually someone finds a way to tamper with this device and steal a lot of money from users. Next, you need Internet to check that the device indeed holds coins - so what's the point of physical Bitcoin then? And lastly, you need to trust the manufacturer that they don't install some backdoor to steal coins from their devices.

Some nobody from Twitter makes a dumb and extreme statement - so what? Is this news-worthy today? Crypto news sites have nothing to report, so they have to grasp at straws, lol. What's next - screenshots of Bitcointalk trolls telling how Bitcoin is doomed? If this tweet was made by some world leader or at least a sitting government officials, maybe it would have been worthy reporting. But we saw Trump criticize crypto last year, and nothing came out of it, aside from Libra getting blocked.

Definitely this one, it's always fun to play something brand new, and I think crypto gambling as a whole needs more originality to attract new players. Bonus points if this game has some element of skill or can be played in pvp mode.

The main feature of blockchain is that blocks are linked together via hashing and pointing to the previous block. Blockchain is definitely a data structure, it even has some similarities to a linked list, but calling it a database is a question of semantics. For example, Bitcoin uses Google's LevelDB internally, so you could argue that blockchain is not a self-sufficient database software akin to MySQL.

I'm referring to the service I created - https://bct-quote-notifier.herokuapp.com/

Coding is pretty fun, you can automate things in your daily life and work and it can just be a great hobby, since it always feels very rewarding when you write some code and run it.

I dumped my Bcash quite soon after that shitcoin was created, so even though I didn't get any BSV, I still got much more profit off it because back in the day the price was like 3 times higher than now (I'm talking about BTC price, not USD). You are doing a right thing by dumping those shitcoins asap, they will be going further down over they years, all these pumps are just manipulations created to draw suckers.

Also, why are you referring to Bitcoin as "BTC-Core"? You're just creating confusion, it sounds like you are talking about yet another fork.

I want to make some telegram bot to practice working with their API, but I'm out of ideas of what to create. I also saw an interesting Bitcoin block API here recently, and it would be great to utilize it to create something useful, but I can't thing of anything original, and I don't want to create something like address watcher, since there's probably countless implementations of it.

So, I'm open to ideas, the project will be free and open source as per OP.

How much of his stash did Satoshi give to exchanges to get Bitcoin listed? Oh wait, it's zero because exchanges listed it for free. The solution is clear - build and they shall come. The guy from the article complains about oversaturation of exchanges, but there's also oversaturation of shitcoins, hence why exchanges can charge big buck for getting a shitcoin listed there. If a project is indeed honest and all around good, it shouldn't matter if its listed or not, people will find ways of exchanging it and using it.

You are correct here, when I see a forum member talk about crypto and blockchain technology as if it's the same thing, I always reply to them with an explanation how they are radically different things aimed at very different groups of users.

But I don't believe that Bitcoin would suffer too much, for starters the blockchain bubble was in 2017 and was started by Bitcoin's bubble, not vice versa, now we potentially have another Bitcoin rally, but alts and corporate blockchain hype are lagging behind - so there's no strong and two-sided correlation here. Plus these "blockchain bros" are doing their best to distance themselves from Bitcoin by saying how old and bad it is, so its another reason why Bitcoin won't be affected much.

BIP 141 was posted in the very end of 2015, and it took us 1,5 years to see SegWit activated - BIPs 340-342 were posted just recently, and I have a feeling they will take much longer to become a part of the protocol, and there's even a chance that some might never get accepted, or it will take much longer than expected. These changes have bigger scale than SegWit, so the devs will need more time to review and test them.

What do you mean by "crypto tax"? People are already supposed to pay a tax on their profits from trading, but since this potential crypto legalization is still miles away - there's no proposed law or even just a plan, no one knows how would the taxes look in case the legalization will happen.