The password is irrelevant, only the seed words matter. When you create a wallet, you are supposed to write down a series of words in a piece of paper, you can recover your wallet with that.
It's not irrelevant, wallet file + password allow you to access your coins, so it's a really bad idea to be careless about it. As for seeds, not all wallets have them, Bitcoin Core doesn't use them and will not use them in close future. If we are talking about wallet files from early days, there's almost no chance that those wallets have seeds, so finding or cracking password is the only way to access the coins again. |
|
|
|
Scammers can prey on desperation, if they find out how desperate you are to create a new wallet, they can all start offering fake efforts to help you out, be careful with PMs you'll be receiving onwards.
Op's post itself is highly suspicious - they offer a large amount of money for help, which often only serves to lure people into some sort of a trap; they also talk that this unnamed scamcoin is going to increase in price in the coming days, which might the whole point of the post - to trick people into buying this coin without sounding like an obvious pump shill. |
|
|
|
|
Running a node on Earth's orbit is one thing, but planet-to-planet connection is entirely different. For starters, the lag would be so big that it would be impossible to have mining on both planets, so one of them will have to have 100% of the hashpower. Also, there's nothing that makes Bitcoin more or less suitable for interplanetary transactions than centralized payment processors - they would probably create a special type of accounts for them, to account for the delay in communication.
|
|
|
|
|
Miners own mining, they don't own Bitcoin's protocol or Bitcoin network or Bitcoin community. Miners don't influence the price in any special way, and there's also no solid proof that anyone successfully manipulates the price on a large scale, it's just rumors of frustrated traders who lose their money doing bad trades.
Bitcoin is still the most decentralized cryptocurrency, because it has the biggest network and community and the most decentralized development with hundreds of contributors.
|
|
|
|
I'm guessing this is in large part due to a generally low level of knowledge about how gambling (and particularly online gambling) works. At the time of my first encounter with Bitcoin gambling (Satoshi Mines) I was also quite ignorant but it took me ~10 minutes to figure out the probabilities. I'm still mystified why some people don't want to learn how gambling works and at the same time are willing to put a lot of money on their wrong assumptions. Let me know what you think.
It's not just ignorance, some people just have a tendency to think that laws don't apply to them, that they are special and have luck, and they surely will win. So, a person can understand that the odds are against them, and still gamble like crazy because of their superstition. I think this is far more common than not understanding the math behind gambling. |
|
|
|
|
Instead of web wallet, create a browser extension wallet, like Metamask but for Bitcoin - this is slightly more secure than a website wallet, but still not good enough for users with at least some understanding of Bitcoin. I personally would never ever use such wallet, I use Electrum and I'm quite happy with it, it's simple, powerful and secure, why should I risk using browser-based wallets?
|
|
|
|
I don't think password manager's could be trusted enough to generate a password for use, mostly when it has to be used for some thing very important or financial stuff.
Password managers are open source software used by millions of people. If you don't trust them, you might as well stop trusting all Bitcoin clients, all operating systems, all hardware, all algorithms. People who misunderstand security tend to weaken themselves by focusing on the wrong things and trying to reinvent the wheel, while lacking the theoretical knowledge to do so. |
|
|
|
The Ethereum is a big disappointment in my opinion. How much it suffers in price loss. Ethereum needs to get up again. Everyone is waiting to update. I think there will be a move after the update. However, Bitcoin needs to remain a little immobile.
Why would it grow if it's fundamentally a, like you say, disappointment? Dapps suck, no one uses them for serious application, best thing you can do with them is gambling, but gambling is already oversaturated in crypto. ETH is still nowhere near solving scalability, and even if it were, it would come at a cost of trading decentralization. |
|
|
|
People buy a lot of bitcoins during those holiday times.
I think people are actually selling more than buying at this time of year, at least those who celebrate Christmas and New Year. Most will actually spend some BTC (by selling for fiat/or directly) to buy gifts, food and drink, decorations and all that is being bought this time of year. People actually buy BTC long before so they can sell it and make a profit in this period, and this was a good strategy this year as well, at least for those who bought in the first few months of this year, they doubled their money. I think the amount of coins sold for buying gifts is negligible and doesn't affect prices - after all, what kind of investors sells their assets just because they want to spend some money? They're supposed to hold only a portion of their net worth in assets and always have some spare cash. My explanation why the price goes down during holidays (which actually doesn't happen all the time) is because traders take vacations during those times, and they liquidate volatile assets because they won't be able to react quickly if there would be a market change. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin today is undisputed king of crypto - in 2017 there was time when ETH came close to flipping it, and many people thought that shitcoins will actually replace Bitcoin, because of cheaper fees or more features, but time has proven that Bitcoin's fundamentals are much stronger than all shitcoins combined.
|
|
|
|
Maybe it's time to abandon it and admit that ONLY money should always release new money?[/b]
You're a newbie and clearly don't understand the point of mining. Hint: it's not creation of new coins, that's just a nice little side effect. The point of mining is synchronizing the network in such way that cheating is impossible, because it's unsustainable. It really doesn't matter how many entities are mining, they have no choice but to follow the rules of the network and don't try to cheat with forks. In fact, one CPU - one vote is less secure, because its easy to create botnets and attack the network for free with stolen hashpower. |
|
|
|
|
Yesterday people were hyping Bakkt's CEO appointment as a senator and the Crypto Mom's participation in some conference, but today some nocoiner gets into position of power and it's suddenly the end of the world. Can we just stop overreacting to insignificant events like this one? I understand that we are currently in a boring period, when the price doesn't move much and no big news happens, but this doesn't mean that we should look at every single event through a "this is good/bad for Bitcoin" prism - they really don't mean much in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like it's another case of fake and misleading news, cause I don't get any confirmations from Ukrainian sources, and the articles themselves don't lead to any sources. So, what really happened, is that Ukraine adopted some AML laws that mention crypto - but there was no bill dedicated specifically to crypto. And since crypto was never illegal, it really doesn't mean anything to crypto users. This is just another trash clickbait article from trash website.
|
|
|
|
These hypotheses are reasonable. They make a good case for gold as money. But human’s obsession with gold is strange. It permeated across societies. Closer examination shows these hypotheses are flawed.
- Scarce: There are many other rare chemical elements. Silver is scarce.
- Beautiful: Gold has a yellow color. While we perceive it as beautiful, gold has probably influenced our view on its beauty. Its color is not desirable in some applications. For example, we like silverware more than golden silverware.
- Unique atomic structure: We didn’t have the tool and knowledge to examine gold chemical properties before it became money thousands of years ago.
No, they are not flawed. - Scarce: other scarce things that had some nice properties were valuable too - silver, platinum, gemstones. - Beautiful: so what that it's not suitable for every case? It was still used for decoration a lot. If gold was bleak, it wouldn't become so valuable in the first place. - Chemical properties: you don't need to be a genius to notice that it doesn't rust or tarnish, unlike other metals, and that you can store it for generations. There are also some other properties - gold is very easy to mint, and being minteable is important property for money - it allows creating standardized coins of the same shape and weight. |
|
|
|
|
In my opinion both unnecessary quoting and lack of quoting are equally bad. With unnecessary quoting everything is clear - it creates clutter, especially when someone starts quoting large posts and images, but lack of quoting is annoying too - it's not always clear to whom the user addresses their reply, to which part of the post they are replying. Also, many people use third-party notifiers and if there's no quote or username mention, there won't be any notification.
|
|
|
|
|
This isn't really big news, Hester Peirce aka Crypto Mom is a known supporter of cryptocurrencies, and she's been doing it for a long time, but she's still in the minority, SEC as a whole isn't too enthusiastic about opening the floodgates of crypto.
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking about adding this feature to my notifier project, but it's a bit tedious to implement, because the recent merit page doesn't show who received merit, only link to the message. But I might make it in the future if I'll have time and interest, so stay tuned.
|
|
|
|
Mr Nakamoto(it would be nice that everyone give him/her that respect) invented something, which has changed our live, we should appreciate and love his creation, rather asking everyday who he was? where can we find him? and so on.
This is spot on, people who truly understand Bitcoin and share its values don't want to deanonymize Satoshi, in fact they want Satoshi to stay hidden if that is his wish. People here really need to learn to respect other's privacy, everyone knows that it's not okay to doxx other forum members, unless they are scammers, but people see nothing wrong with doxxing Satoshi, just because he isn't active anymore. |
|
|
|
|
1. Those works had to be patented before we can start talking about any intellectual property theft. And cypherpunks are known for being against copyright laws.
2. Satoshi didn't copy their works, he used their experience to create something entirely new and very different from those works.
3. No one creates something from scratch, everyone uses knowledge of predecessors and improves on their ideas, this is absolutely normal. Satoshi didn't steal anything neither legally or morally or in any other sense of this world.
|
|
|
|
|
Some countries are already 80-90% cashless, but no countries is nowhere near replacing fiat - in fact there's probably barely a few people in this world who live 100% on crypto without ever touching fiat. There's no way it will dramatically change in the next decade, so this is just another sensationalist and misleading article. Bitcoin community was talking about fully replacing fiat for many years, but the actual progress is incredibly slow.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
