Yes, a rise in the price is inevitable by the end of this year. I mean, I had to see such bullishness around a year now. PlanB predicted correctly the worst case scenarios of August, September and October. Let's see if we'll pass the $70k this month. I don't have the balls to buy bitcoin right now. But, based on your post, it doesn't have much risk. You said that within the next six months the price will skyrocket. So, maybe you're contradicting yourself or not believing that much what you're saying. |
|
|
|
but if a guy robs me through my computer I'm helpless. I don't like the feeling. He'd rob you if he ever found out you own cryptocurrencies. If he didn't, you wouldn't be his prey. So, it's a matter of privacy. I don't belong to that "group", so I can only go by what I read or hear. That's why I said it's stereotypical. There's no evidence that Argentina has the greatest hackers in sum neither that the Argentines are used to make damage. Just stereotypes. No such thing as impossible. Tor obfuscates your identity, to the point even US 3-letter agencies have been unable to crack it. So why did you want to add another “layer” of privacy protection (VPN) in front of it? You said it yourself; Tor obfuscates your identity to a high degree. |
|
|
|
Not improbable. Humans like stuff like that. When they've been waited for so long, to see how it works. even 50-of-50 multisig wallet will have the same fee as wallet with just single public key Right, but isn't 15-of-15 the maximum you can have? Lightning network in a way even there can be means of recovering back, like having 3-of-4 Multisig wallet, if one seed phrase is lost or master private key is lost, you can still recover your funds. You must not lose any of the four master public keys, though. |
|
|
|
Something like a CBDC might easily catch on in China, but man....I hope it never becomes a reality in the West. You'll still have your cryptocurrencies which (some) are essentially anonymous electronic cash. Even if it happens, which is what we're heading towards to, you will have a way to protect yourself. All I noticed about CBDCs is no transparency. I have tried to want to know how CBDC is working but nothing to prove that it uses blockchain technology, nothing like mining, obviously. Imagine this: A government decides to create the CBDC “Absolut”. Then, you can use that one as cash instead of the banknotes in your pocket. Not only do you know nothing about the transactions (opaque ledger), but you also have a big brother watching the transactions you make. It's against privacy, freedom and the ideology that cash must not be in the faith of a central authority. That the cash must not have a central point of failure. |
|
|
|
The reason I'm worried about security is twofold What you actually worry is your privacy. If you are somehow found to use bitcoin, you may get robbed and thus, be unsecured. But, you should be aware of how to protect your privacy so that you'll remain secure. first, Argentinian hackers are said to be among the best (not surprisingly, considering Argentinians generally have penchant for doing damage) This sounds a bit stereotypical, no offense. The law here is so twisted that if you defend yourself, you go to prison. So what you want is to never happen to be in a case where you have to defend yourself. The above recommendations are fine to hide your identity. It depends, though, on how you'll buy and use those cryptocurrencies. For instance, if you use a bank to make the transaction, then your state can know it. Your options are generally limited. Retaining privacy in 2021 is a headache. |
|
|
|
I know n0nce knows this, but it goes to Berny. On the word of privacy; if you look up your balance via normal blockchain explorers and SPV wallets, the provider of that site can and will link & save your IP address and the Bitcoin address you looked up. There are multiple ways to avoid this and it may deserve its own topic. I personally, since a long time, either look up addresses over the Tor version of blockchain explorers, or just use my own Bitcoin node. If you look up the balance of your addresses in clearnet, your IP can be traced and make yourself neither private nor anonymous. Visiting the block explorers from Tor won't work either, because the receiver (onion service) will query for different addresses, but from the same sender which can then link them. If you want to protect your privacy you'll have to change your relay circuit every time. Or a much more private and easy way: Run a node. Unless the TOR server you are connected to is also malicious. For what Tor server are you talking about? |
|
|
|
Obviously I can't speak for the BSV peeps, but the way I see it: they've been so financially and emotionally invested in Craig Wright and BSV that they're pretty much in denial. Yeah, but it's never too late to educate yourself and invest into bitcoin; history has shown for the latter. Why would you want to continue supporting something you're in denial of if you're not convinced from the arguments? That's one of the major disadvantages of decentralization. That their thread isn't deleted? No, it's due to the lenient rules of bitcointalk. This is what most Bitcoin enthusiasts don't understand from my thinking I believe it is the work of some altcoin project owner (people like Ver who said "he can believe people think BTC is the real Bitcoin") who sees Bitcoin as hindrances to their project bloom. Okay... But, it doesn't answer on what you've quoted. |
|
|
|
The only similarity between CBDCs and crypto currency is that most CDBC are built on the Blockchain network but they presence of the third party involvement has discredited it from been a cryptocurrency. Which CBDCs use the block chain technology? None. A CBDC could be imagined as a Google spreadsheet with limited rights such as changing the values of each table etc. If Google decides to create more money, the users can't question it. It's just like the traditional monetary system where FED prints the banknotes. No indication of monetary freedom <=> No use of the block chain technology. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin IS fungible and the fact that some centralized entity decides to target random individuals and discriminate against them doesn't change this fact. Actually, that fact is what defines fungibility. If some people don't want your currency while they're supposed to accept it, then it faces fungibility issues. When a government forces the exchanges to trace transactions that are connected with illicit activity and to deny the acceptance of those bitcoins, then they've essentially lost value, because compared with the rest, they aren't demanded from the X exchange. Since you used gold let me give you an example, where I live if you want to sell gold they will ask for a receipt to prove you have indeed bought this gold and when and if you can't, they won't buy "your gold". So with that logic you should say that gold is not fungible! But, gold isn't a currency. First of all every currency in the world is "tainted by illicit activity" but you never hear about thing about discrimination against those currencies! Cash is much more fungible. Monero is fungible. Here is another fundamental problem with your whole arguments. You are focusing on exchanges but bitcoin is not even supposed to be used in exchanges! Exchanges aren't used only as wallets for some. They're used to buy cryptocurrencies. You're allowed to withdraw bitcoins to your non-custodial wallet, but if your deposit isn't going to be accepted in certain cases, then it's most likely a fungibility issue. |
|
|
|
|
Opinions are like ass holes; everybody has one. Same applies for JP Morgan, although I doubt this is indeed the way they see it. It's probably some sort of client manipulation. It doesn't make any sense. Why should it be $35k? Have they analyzed this or can I assume that it's just an arbitrary number?
Large companies do this sometimes. They show that they're against something to drop its market value temporarily and then they make a generous purchase. Didn't Michael Saylor do this?
|
|
|
|
I learned that there are a lot of criminals preying on crypto investors. Yes, but with you don't achieve much by just enhancing your privacy. For instance, don't you also give KYC to the crypto platform? Would using Tor over a VPN be a good idea for crypto trading? It's generally not a good idea to route traffic through a VPN if you're already using Tor. Can I use a VPN with Tor? Generally speaking, we don't recommend using a VPN with Tor unless you're an advanced user who knows how to configure both in a way that doesn't compromise your privacy. You can find more detailed information about Tor + VPN at our wikiIs there a specific reason you want to do that? Has your crypto trading platform blacklisted Tor's exit nodes? |
|
|
|
|
Yeah! Now haters can stop bringing the “China owns Bitcoin” as an argument.
Here's a question: Can't they continue mining with renewable sources of energy? They do face some issues with the minimization of coal, but can't some continue having their income this way? I mean, why banning it if it doesn't damage you with any way? You can also benefit yourself this way by taxing the ones who do. Κill two birds with one stone.
|
|
|
|
they prolly aren't thinking critically like you want them to It's not just critical thinking that reveals you the obvious. There's a dedicated development team about bitcoin's client, an even bigger team of people who work for the Lightning Network or other projects, this forum that contains sayings of inspiring people, signed messages by addresses Craig is supposed to own which reveals clearly he's a liar, an ideology that rejects single entities or people who influent the currency and ruin the beauty of decentralization. It's not just critical thinking that misses from these people. They're also unaware of what's Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I read tweets about bitcoin since I follow mostly bitcoin related accounts, but I have to admit; there's a ton of BSV supporters. I mean, many, not just a bunch of bots or Craig and his BSV bitcointalk accounts. (Whose topic I still don't get why it isn't deleted) Seriously, just search for “ Craig Wright” in Twitter. I don't understand what's the incentive of those people on continuing this propaganda. Do they really consider their arguments valid? Are they convinced that Craig is Satoshi even though there are numerous accusations that suggest otherwise? Do they get paid for doing it somehow? I haven't ever met a person who supports it in real life, but I can imagine they'll have some sort of disorder to do it. |
|
|
|
Update!  Blocks until taproot activation:  [abbr=BlackHatCoiner's Blockchain Stats BBCode Depicter][url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5366056.0][img]https://blackhatcoiner.com/taproot/[/img][/url][/abbr] Days since ATH:  [abbr=BlackHatCoiner's Blockchain Stats BBCode Depicter][url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5366056.0][img]https://blackhatcoiner.com/daysSinceATH/[/img][/url][/abbr] Time since last block:  [abbr=BlackHatCoiner's Blockchain Stats BBCode Depicter][url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5366056.0][img]https://blackhatcoiner.com/timeSinceLastBlock/[/img][/url][/abbr] How many blocks until difficulty readjustment? That many:  [abbr=BlackHatCoiner's Blockchain Stats BBCode Depicter][url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5366056.0][img]https://blackhatcoiner.com/retarget/[/img][/url][/abbr]
Lightning Network! (Public) Capacity:  [abbr=BlackHatCoiner's Blockchain Stats BBCode Depicter][url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5366056.0][img]https://blackhatcoiner.com/LN/capacity/[/img][/url][/abbr] Total Channels:  [abbr=BlackHatCoiner's Blockchain Stats BBCode Depicter][url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5366056.0][img]https://blackhatcoiner.com/LN/totalchannels/[/img][/url][/abbr] Total Nodes:  [abbr=BlackHatCoiner's Blockchain Stats BBCode Depicter][url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5366056.0][img]https://blackhatcoiner.com/LN/totalnodes/[/img][/url][/abbr]
Mempool!Total transactions:  [abbr=BlackHatCoiner's Blockchain Stats BBCode Depicter][url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5366056.0][img]https://blackhatcoiner.com/mempool/transactions/[/img][/url][/abbr] Total fees:  [abbr=BlackHatCoiner's Blockchain Stats BBCode Depicter][url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5366056.0][img]https://blackhatcoiner.com/mempool/fees/[/img][/url][/abbr]
Unrelated with that. do you know how can I change BBCode text color and make it white (or some other color), because I am currently using dark theme in my browser and numbers are hard to see? There's no way I can think of. The fact that you're viewing the site with an addon can't be known from blackhatcoiner.com.
|
|
|
|
Does it depend on different/same r? I haven't confirmed their equation(s), but it seems it doesn't matter what the r values will be. |
|
|
|
|
We want it to be globally adopted, but we don't want these big players to get involved?
Obviously, the adoption from the banks' side was inevitable to happen and will bring regulation, but hey, that's the cost. You couldn't except from the governments to hug bitcoin and its highly anarchic ideology warmly. It may be recognized as a better store of value asset, but I'm pretty sure they'll abuse their power on tracing us way too much.
As for your last words; anonymity is mostly gone since 1995 and decentralization isn't affected from banks' adoption.
|
|
|
|
For whoever didn't understand interiawp's post, I'll try to simplify it. These s, r and z are values that can be derived from an ECDSA signature. As I've said recently; The signature is consisted of [r, s] and z is the hash of the message we want to sign. The s is created if you combine the message hash (z) and the private key (d). They say that if we have this kind of connection between 3 public keys AND a signed message from EACH public key, it'd be entirely possible to calculate their private keys. Same applies for my example. If I we had a signed message from all 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa, 1LZtnC7Ck37V9uLGGXFmaVkeaLyzFLvf6W and 1J2jrkkXrHp3To3VFDo6QVQKhWQt3L7nDG we could work out all's private keys. The problem is that we only have one's private key. |
|
|
|
if they are connected , and if and only iff there are in not less than one output on each address, you can recalculate all privatekeys belongs to them. Assuming you mean that the public keys have this connection and we do know these public keys, then no. If you know that k1G + k2G = k3G and you know k3, it doesn't mean you also know k1 and k2. Only if you knew another k you could work out every private key. yes, but I'm talking that there are possibilities take the first privatekey from the first addres, but only then if from rest address are minimal one output:)
This doesn't make a lot of sense and since we're discussing on a topic with proper formulation of every sentence, you'll have to describe this better. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
