Theymos clarifies the reason for his decision further in that thread he made; the forum is avoiding the whole drama and complications that will come with allowing mixers to be promoted here and the consequence is can have on the members who wear the signature as well as the manager who runs the campaign, all of these factors influenced the decision to draw the curtains on them.

They are not illegal and you are still very much allowed to use them if you want to use that to maintain you privacy.

I will rather introduce children very slowly to the entire financial system and how the can game that system. Introducing then to just Bitcoin is limited when it will form just a part of their financial life not the entirety of it and that's if they get into it at all.

When it comes to introducing the financial system there are various ways that can be done, using stories children find exciting is one way to do that, you need to find what works for you.

The closest I have come to this is creating a Bitcoin wallet to test run something. I sent a small amount of Bitcoin to that wallet ran the test I wanted to and left them on the wallet without opening it for the next 3 years.
When I returned to the wallet later when I was verifying my different seedphrases I discovered it and the then insignificant amount had become a bit more significant. It felt like a gift to myself from the past.

You were really lucky to not only get notified of the plan to close dormant accounts but to still find your funds on it. In my experience platforms will close shop with whatever was left on it in the hopes that no one will check their dormant accounts.

Since its inception around around 14 years ago Bitcoin has been up for 99.999% of the time, with a negligible downtime. The chances of Bitcoin shutting down is basically zero, and this factors in the government's intervention too.

If hypothetically Bitcoin does have a downtime it will have a very significant effect on the value of Bitcoin and the entire cryprocurrency space. Exchanges will be run over with sell offs and could temporarily halt their services, this will happen for all cryptos in the market.
The news and media will be hyped causing more fud and even more panic sales.

This is possible with the right level of censorship and centralization. The government is basically tightening the noise of decentralization leaving only very little room for mixers to operate in an effort to ensure that they can track everything and no one stays off the radar.

Short answer is yes.

Also short answer is that to escape the hammer of the authorities mixers may have to become an extension which can be used to track Bitcoin users. This doesn't provide full protection though.

This takes support to a whole new level, it certainly takes a lot of balls to do too.
I never thought privates could be used for publicity.

Probably NSFW

This is sensational reporting; using headlines to make a story more catchy to build traffic.

Ocean (the mining pool in question) is not doing anything to directly influence the Bitcoin mining process, what it's doing us at their business level to change how payments are distributed to the individual miners who join their pool. Decentralizing that process, if done correctly, will boost trust and attract miners to join their pool.

There so many complexities when it comes to investments that one should avoid making general statements on it. Financial situations are different, properties are also held and valued differently depending on what part of the world you live in.

The general advice is to only invest what you can afford to lose, it's up to the person to decide what they can afford to lose based on their current financial situation and act accordingly.

Again, there is no straightforward solution so this may not be necessary depending on the circumstance around the sale of the property.

Either electrum or Bitcoin core works for me.

How safe it is depends on how you use it, starting with verifying it when downloading, here's how to - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5240594.msg54223763#msg54223763

All of the addresses can receive from Binance.

Yes, they all start with different alphabets or letters and have different number of characters.
They also hav different tx fees you will pay when initiating a transaction.

No

Yes.

At this point theymos getting that newbie welcome message is
 kind of a necessity.

Op, read though this thread and also the different links in it, particularly the one to the forum rules.
On any new board you want to discuss on, read the stickie threads.

This is certainly not the case. There has been a number of improvement proposals geared towards making transaction cost cheaper, one of them is SegWit. There are also off chain solutions that has been implemented.

I am not certain what you are talking about, but what is more important to the fees is the inputs in the transaction, and this cannot be fixed by simply sending transactions in batches.

For an example; If you want to send $1000 worth of Bitcoin and do that in batches of $200 but had received little amounts of Bitcoin to make up the $1000, it's possible that your $200 transaction can have 10 or more inputs which will shoot the cost up.

Consolidating your inputs during low fee periods is something that can help.

Just to point out that there are other ways you can support a business that is accepting Bitcoin besides paying for a product in Bitcoin, especially if you're not going to do that consistently. You can;
• Promote their business to their target audience,
• Offer advice to them to help them better use Bitcoin as a payment method,
• Buy their product in other currencies on offer that you are comfortable spending. Most businesses convert the bitcoins instantly to fiat, so paying in fiat is also a financial support to the business.

These are options you can go for if liquidating some of your bitcoins is too much of a leap to take and it will still give you results.

Using a bank vault is not easier or more efficient and the process of running a timelocked transaction or address is one that anyone with Bitcoin knowledge can try out.

• a bank vault is a third party centralized service, which means you have to trust that they do not open your vault at anytime during when you are using it,
• It costs money to use; th annual fee is not so significant but when you roll over to ten or twenty years it begins to be.
• your country's legality of Bitcoin can change at any point, which means you possibly can have an illegal property stored at the bank.

There are decentralized alternatives at zero costs which you can use.

There just ain't enough demand for something like this compared to the amount of work it will take to start and maintain. People who are on the forum and don't know what's going on in reputation are most likely not interested in that board and the drama that comes with it, those who are not frequenting the forum anymore will definitely not be too interested in the nuances that goes on here.

A recap of what's going on in bitcoin will be something I will love to see and follow, but that's just me.

There are no uncertainties around CBDCs, they will be high on scalability, but low on decentralization and security. They will be highly censored and regulated and become another means for the government to eliminate privacy.

You should not even be expecting anything from CBDCs, best case scenario is they function exactly as fiat is doing now, worse case scenario, they find a way to be even worse than the current system.

There are far too many differences between altcoins and bitcoins to term them volatile versions of Bitcoin.

• Bitcoin is secure, majority of alts are built on insecure algorithms.
• Bitcoin is decentralized, majority of alts are centralized.
• Bitcoin has a use case, majority of alts do not.

Volatility is just a factor of the difference.

I agree that some of the decisions he has made has been rash, looking like they were made for the shock effect of wanting to change things at the snap of the finger rather than having a long term goal in mind, but politicians have been failing for years unend now.

I don't think we should highlight the non-politicians who entered into leadership positions as an argument against it, we have had a truckload of politicians running economies to the ground and there are non-politicians who have done well in their time in charge.

This is a controversial example to use.
CZ was already successful before Bitcoin. He had advanced greatly in his software career and had even started his own company 4 years before Bitcoin was launched. His house was not his "wealth". It wasn't a case of a retail employee who sold the only property he owned to invest in Bitcoin, in a make or break financial move.

From all publications about him CZ was never one who valued properties like houses and cars a lot, Wich could have made doing away with the house much easier, particularly it he had wealth locked away in other different digital assets.

You're walking a tight rope here. If anything goes wrong in the investment you will bear the brunt of the blame for hoarding him into selling his property for a high risk investment.
Also, your friend should definitely pay attention to the public, read books on investment, understand the risk from those that have been there, before making a decision. The market today and when CZ sold his house is a lot different, so you can't simply replicate what was done then.

You do mak a very solid argument for why Satoshi chose to remain anonymous. Their presence in today's space would have been an unwanted distraction cause the authorities will dig up ever detail about them in search of something to sue for or to make them look less heroic to the public, could be a social media post from when they were teenagers or an academic record.

Bitcoin is a near perfect creation and Satoshi most probably did not want to be juxtaposed next to it, with people expecting perfection from him and associating any flaw they find to Bitcoin.

Whatever the reason, it was a good decision.