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.

The cost of having a regular Bitcoin transaction confirmed within few hours hasn't come above $1 months now. On the other hand, my bank still takes €2 out of a €100 I choose to transfer for no certain reason. And that's one of the reasons why Bitcoin was created; because trust can sometimes be really costly. Whether you move a dollar or millions of dollars, it'll probably come cheaper with Bitcoin.

Fees are calculated based on the transaction size, not the amounts moved. For micro-payments check the Lightning Network.

Now if you use a centralized exchange such as Binance that charges thousands of sats for every transaction you make, then I'll stop you right there. You've already begun this wrongly. Install a non-custodial wallet, have your own keys, be at none's dependence and choose the fees yourself.

That's true, and I can easily say that I was one of those. I came with many questions, grasped the concept, liked the idea and then saw there's this thing called "signature campaign" which attracted me. And it works. People are encouraged to help others learn, because they earn a few bucks by doing it. And newcomers do actually learn!

I haven't seen this happening elsewhere. Maybe this forum distinguishes somehow. Or perhaps the incentive of the network effect is one of the many key aspects of this ingenious technology.

And these groups' choices are made usually based on the people's interest. If the people start using Bitcoin then they have to adapt to it unless the "elite" are completely authoritarian. We see how China is constantly fighting it; it can't shut it down, so it tries to "shut down" every citizen's right to it.

In the west, things are less excruciating humanitarian-wise. The governments want to portray themselves as freedom seekers; at least in the economy. People have their right to speech and if they all started treating cryptocurrencies as money by tomorrow morning, I believe the government wouldn't have a choice other than to adjust.

The main problem is that this won't ever happen, because they perpetually brainwash you to feel you need them. There are other problems too, such as people don't understand money or don't care about it at all. Then, there's the internet propaganda that misleads the public, the fact that Bitcoin is a hard term to grasp etc.

Those are what's really preventing worldwide adoption, not the block size.

That is true. Note that we're trying to minimize the trust required, not to eliminate it completely. As said by pooya87, they ought to be very discouraged to carry out such attack financially.

Same happens with Bitcoin and the Lightning Network. There's trust that an entity won't behave maliciously and reverse blocks or broadcast an old commitment while you're not online, but they're very discouraged to do so financially and therefore, trust is highly minimized.

For someone who doesn't want to install any software, it's definitely useful, but I'm trying to find one case where a Bitcoin user has no wallet software installed already. Unless that's for a person who's never used Bitcoin before.

Sure, I don't disagree, I'm just saying that it introduces more risks, such as the browser extensions that I mentioned, the reliability to the browser that is used (if it's closed source), the less variety of nodes available to broadcast the transaction (as they're only those with APIs), the use of javascript for randomness generation which is not recommended for a number of reasons.

Then, it's the reputation of the software; yours is something new and judging from the 1.83 MB js file, I don't have the time to check what is the back end doing.

---

Again, I don't criticize you. You made your software and that's good for you. All I'm saying is that I don't find serious utility, especially given the above risks.

This is true, and if you simply state the targeted block height on a paper or a website, new readers can't verify that you didn't change it afterwards you found a, satisfactory for you, hash.

People have to somehow verify that you picked a block height at the time it hadn't been mined yet. That's what I propose:

• Include a statement into an OP_RETURN transaction. It will contain the targeted block's height and will be confirmed before it gets mined.
• Once the targeted block is mined, hash all the hundreds of thousands of block headers.
• Publish a signed message with the public key you used to create the OP_RETURN output and the hash that is resulted as a message.

Now readers can verify that you can't have behaved maliciously.

Excuse me from asking, but why would anyone want to use this? You've said that the wallet uses public APIs and so, your IP can be tracked, that the users should be extremely cautious etc. You've literally called it the most dangerous wallet, and it's true. There are many things you should be aware of such as your browser extensions, programs that have access to your browser etc.

Sure, it might was a good exercise to code it, but to serve it as a "fast & anonymous wallet"? I think it's just bad. Benignly.

You can't compare countries of different regimes and expect to make a proper conclusion. If the pigs administrate their economy, last thing they'd want is uncontrollable, censorship-resistant money. Also, who says it's banned? All I know is that they've forbidden mining.

Perhaps because there are hundreds of other reasons one won't leave their country?

I wouldn't say all those who use Bitcoin are libertarians with emphasized ideals etc. Most are probably conservatists who just want to make a few bucks and pretend to support this libertarian movement. However, the hypocrisy, if you want, of the latter does favor the former.

Activity is 42, which means Jr. Member.

Which account is it?

The question that comes to mind is: Why do you have to include your public key to scriptSig 10 times if it's from the same address? Isn't 1 enough?

I'm not sure I understood what I just read. It just says that the blockchain technology goes beyond the payment processing system to something even more innovative. Is it trying to imply that local execution isn't good and everything should be done in public? I really don't know. Why should I use an OS that captures my commands and broadcasts them to the world?

It contains lots of buzzwords, to be honest, such as "decentralized use of OS" and "distributed ledger technology" which discourages me to search that up. Also, that doesn't make sense:
Wherever there's a blockchain, one thing's sure: Inefficiency.

A blockchain is a distributed database whose units of data are considered non-interchangeable. It was created to solve double-spending, but due to its immutability, it enabled other protocols to use its security properties for storing small amounts of data.

A computer operating system, such as Windows or Linux, has nothing to do with it. You've confused it with something else or you've misunderstood the whole concept completely.

Nonsense actions always leave unaddressed concerns. Take for instance the Russian address blacklisting from Coinbase. Governments are perpetually trying to figure out ways to control their citizens no matter if their actions are reasonable or not. But as a wise man once said,

The power abuse comes from the impression that you need them for almost everything, especially their money. This aggressive behavior is on years now, as pooya87 has said.

As for Monero, it wouldn't surprise me if they required from centralized exchanges to hand out the customers' view keys, if any does accept it anyway; I thought we had baptized its usage as criminal offense. Notice that these actions bring into the open how faulty it is to rely on a third party.

Something tells me that those who do use it and aren't into it to make a quick buck will sooner or later rise in percentage, and along with it, the P2P exchanging necessity might emerge consequently. Is it currently a period to be hopeful or not, I wonder.

This is indeed correct, I hadn't thought of it. Thanks!

I think we're nearby the obvious here. If you're going to donate to an organization regarding Ukraine you should either way be cautious. I'll give a better example: If you're going to buy drugs, is it the address reuse that will make you give special importance to your privacy protection?