I don't think there's a way to do that and gain the same privacy you would (without any on-chain connection). There are solutions which improve your privacy non-centrally, such as JoinMarket, but the inputs and the outputs have an on-chain connection.

I'd be appreciated if you explained how could this work, but as far as I can tell it's impossible unless we entangled it with the Lightning Network which would then create other kind of problems (such as liquidity).

Not to mention that is much easier to reverse such payment. You can just give a call and have it reversed. On the other hand, in Bitcoin, transaction confirmation isn't down to you nor to a financial institution. You'll have to bribe some of the mining pools and you'll still have a great percentage of uncertainty.

It depends on how you understand failure. Has it solved the problems it promised it would? Then, it succeeded. Period. From now on I don't know if it'll continue gaining market appreciation, but as far as I can tell, there are merchants who accept it and people who pay with it and get their paycheck in it.

It can't be stopped. Now, will the people suddenly stop evaluating it that much for X, Y, Z reason? Probably, there will be Bitcoin crisis' in the future, but not "failures". Gold also had such crisis'; did it "fail"?

I thought of another reason: What if a hacker abuses their position to increase their gains or manipulate the network? Take for instance incidents with exchanges or organizations where the hackers get away with the money; we observe those once in a while.

It's definitely more difficult to steal the ASICs by breaking into the miners' houses. 

It's not only what they don't understand, but broader than that. It has been repeatedly subject of propaganda in different forms (criminality, environmental impact etc.), because it doesn't favor authorities, but authorities control the media.

It's also that people don't make great researches and Bitcoin requires a significant time to sit down disciplined and understand what it is.

There's nothing odd with the 10 minutes interval. It's the best trade-off in efficiency, security and simplicity. The 21,000,000 was rather probably the only arbitrary choice. I like thinking there's a correlation with this:

That's also a spooky coincidence:

Which is, by the way, another Britain weekly newspaper.

Reducing the 10 minutes block interval, which rewards with 6.25 BTC to, say, 1 minute block interval, which rewards with 0.625 BTC isn't the same security-wise. The reason is that the network works asynchronously. Propagation takes some time, and if two miners solve the same block, we call one of those a "stale block".

Therefore, the less the interval the more the chances to have stale blocks. Quoting this excellent post which describes it better:

These are the worst wallets out there. They are closed source and as said above, Coinomi, specifically has had a bad reputation incident. Don't rely on third parties, that's the purpose of Bitcoin after all.

Consider switching to Electrum and for better privacy, run your own full node which will connect to it.

Let's see,

• You don't explain what is all about this project.
• You, nevertheless, ask for CVs.
• You call yourself Satoshi Nakamoto without providing any proof. (As always)

You have everything required to get distrusted. Am I right?

What he's telling you is that there's still trust from either the user or the service the way you say it. There are ways to trade trustlessly, such as with submarine swaps, but there's no way I know to give a mixer access to your money and get them back, mixed, without having to trust they won't rip you off.

Remember: They need to create outputs with your money and therefore, you need to hand them out. Afterwards, it's part of their service.

It wasn't just about your incompetence; you advertise yourself as a wallet recovery service, but yet you don't know the basics. You're supposedly the one who should be paid for this bounty you have called. That's suspicious.

Why don't you use an LTS or a virtual machine then? If we're talking about millions of dollars worth of bitcoins I'd boot a Linux distro right now and do this professionally.

You say that you only want passwords that start with "Ca" and are either words or phrases (not sure what's the difference). You don't know anything else that could reduce the effort by a lot.

So why don't you just try every wordlist with a "Ca" added in every line (all together) by you?

Have you tried every single of those in weakpass?

Different types exist to accomplish transaction in a different manner. For example, P2PKH[1] (AKA Legacy) means that you're locking funds to the hash of a public key; those are the addresses that start with 1. P2SH[2] means that you're locking funds to a hash of a script, such as multi-sig; those that start with 3. Then, it's the SegWit[3].

You should use the latter to minimize transaction expenses in fees.

[1] https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/p2pkh
[2] https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/p2sh
[3] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segregated_Witness

In Bitcoin Core you can use:
(dev link)

in3rsha has also written this: bitcoin-utxo-dump. (In Go language)

As a self-proclaimed "long-term holder", I don't plan to cash out in the accepted sense of the term. My vision is greater than that.

I demand to buy whatever I want, whenever I want in electronic cash. Whenever I use Bitcoin, I admire us; we've proved, once more, that we're more capable of making decisions for ourselves. We can work outside this broken system. We can redefine money and settle transactions without unquestionable authorities.

I don't like the idea of holding bitcoins for a decade, just to return back with more fiat. They say don't put money above principles, 'cause you're gonna lose both, and that's my life motto from now on.

I've come to stay. 

We should definitely not include invalid URLs in our personal text. 

Petition to wear this on April fools. 

I wasn't talking about the hash function, but asymmetric cryptography. How's a rehashed blockchain useful? Say we switched to SHA-3; wouldn't that eliminate the work that is done in previous blocks?

Also, how's that related with efficiency?

You make it sound as if the paid participants would necessarily lie or mislead, just to fulfill the requirement. I've written feedback, and have got paid to do so, but I was as objective and sharply critic as possible.

Yes, it would be, indeed, another marketing trick, but I'm not convinced by the downsides.