But, the paper describes Satoshi's vision. You can't deny that what we're working on is someone's vision since the paper was written by them.

Why do you give so much emphasis to the whitepaper? The whitepaper also contains false definitions such as “the longest chain” instead of “the chain with the most work”.

I guess you wanted to mean it metaphorically. Even that way, it's wrong to state it. They aren't forced to work anywhere. They're free to choose another pool or create one themselves if they feel they have to. The pool owner isn't an oppressor. He can't threaten miners. The opposite; the miners can damage him by choosing to not work on his pool.

Wouldn't the miners realize it before it happens? They receive block headers and could understand if they're working on a block that was mined before.

But, it's the way it was visioned;

---

---

I think calling miners slaves is a little bit excessive. Miners can leave and rejoin the pool at their own willing. They're also free to move on a different pool. As for the block header, that's what they've agreed upon. If you don't like these rulings, you can try solving a block yourself or work for a pool with much less effort.

Your transactions can been seen by everyone; that's the block chain technology. The scare about needing a public server to know your balance and transact is the case you want to remain anonymous. If the server knew your IP and you demanded to know how much money does 1PharM... have, you could be noted as related with it. Let alone if you sent a signed transaction, which would prove it's you. You could use Tor and avoid this.

The other downside is that in HD wallets, you'll have to send all of those addresses to the server, so it can return you their balances. This is a matter of privacy due to the connection they can make between them even if some have never transacted with each other.

Think of this. You own a few bitcoins and transact everyday. You know how Bitcoin works, but you prefer having another party delivering your information. You don't want to verify the blocks which is the whole point of self-dependence. Instead, you trust another doing it for you.

If you sit down and overthink it, you'll realize that you have no idea how much money you have. You're trusting a third party for telling it to you. The whole cash system truly works if you're badass enough to verify it yourself.

Example in real life: You have some cash, but instead of looking up on your packet you let a stranger do that for you. By the assumption he wouldn't be able to steal them from you, would you still feel confident if you allowed that man grabbing your money and paying for your goods?

Yes, but sources will sooner or later get some even if they stay inactive. If you're not a source, you'll have to contribute a lot with constructive posts to earn the same sMerits.

Would you mind dropping us your configuration file? (obviously with a blanked password)

That's a hardcoded value, but I believe you can increase it if you added nodes with addnode in your bitcoin.conf.

You can both broadcast transactions and get block information by not accepting incoming connections. The nodes that accept those are the ones the network lives from. For instance, when you want to sync your node, they'll send you the blocks. The network couldn't be consisting of nodes that accept only outgoing transactions. Those are mostly ran for personal reasons. (Such as for privacy)

They'll tell you that you need to buy the copper membership.

If you want to provide the legitimacy of your project, why don't you do it publicly? The moderators aren't going to check if you've plagiarized a whitepaper; at least that's not their business. They will check the thread, but until there. Aren't we your viewers and possible supporters?

You have to convince the users that what you're doing is honest work, if you want recognition. There are tons of projects that have failed and left the forum users with a bad taste. There's prejudice about promising projects and you'll have to make the difference if you want it to success.

An encrypted message shouldn't be readable by the whole world, but only from you and OgNasty. What you tried to send is a signed message.

Is Bitcoin a ponzi? No.
Are those shitcoins ponzis? Yes.

Explanation: Ponzi is a strict term. In a ponzi scheme, the old investors promise high returns to the newcomers. The difference between a non-ponzi business and a ponzi one is the legitimacy. For instance, Bitcoin is not a ponzi, because besides a speculative asset, it's also useful. Many people use it as money and the creator never promised anything. In contrast, shitcoins such as SHIBA, make a copy of a cryptocurrency and project it as the new one which will flip the others. This is clearly a promise, which makes some of the new investors believe it'll have high returns.

Since these coins aren't providing anything different, they're doomed to lose their value in the long term while their creators will have gilded themselves.

---

So no. You aren't the only one who feels that way. They exist only for pumping and dumping.

You have to see things a little more differently and maybe get away of the network thinking.

Regulating Bitcoin doesn't necessarily mean that governments will destroy it by establishing a 51% attack or they'll forbid you to be part of the peer-to-peer network. No, currently, you have every right to run full nodes and verify the validity of the block chain. So, in theory Bitcoin works. No one can stop this movement unless strict authoritarianism prevailed in the whole world.

But will the cryptopunks' dream come true? To sum their dream up, they supported anarchy and so, Bitcoin began with this ideology. They were visioning a currency that will not be regulated by anyone nor controlled. While it does, indeed, work decentralized, don't you see that the society's permission is required to adopt it officially? There are already many exchanges asking for KYC which ruin one of its principles; anonymity. So, besides its deflationary nature, how does it differ from fiat?

As time goes on, it'll be seen more as a weapon from the side of the governments.

Because of the argument that Bitcoin is centralized due to the China's miners. Some folks will state this by adding that Chinese own the majority of the hash rate and since China is an authoritarian nation, their government rules those those who own the majority. While this isn't correct to conclude, they say their government essentially owns it.

It doesn't have to do with the thread, I just mentioned it, because the nodes' distribution isn't even such thing. It doesn't matter if all the nodes run in the USA, China or Germany. Running a node is more like a personal procedure in which you're having much more benefits than the network.

I guess OP asks if it's required to run a full node yourself. There's no network without full nodes, that's obvious.

Yes, it's possible. First off, creating addresses has nothing to do with the network. You only prove you're the owner of them by providing a valid signature which has been made from your private keys. When you want to receive money, you'll give your address, the payer will create the so called unspent transaction output (UTXO) funding an address which can be spent only if a signature of the address' public key is provided.

As for broadcasting transactions, that's also possible without running a full node, neither a pruned one. You can use an SPV node to serve you the information related with your wallet and send there your signed transactions. The server will then broadcast them to the Bitcoin network.

An implementation of an SPV wallet is Electrum.

Even if these nodes weren't running from Azure's IP addresses, what would be the point of this “node count” anyway? What can you assume if you know that most of the nodes come directly from a specific continent? There's difference between the distribution of the hash rate and the nodes that are ran.

You should read the replies above. You can't know where they're located.

You can't have really forgotten the whole password. Not even a part of it or how it's like? Trying to remember the least can save you lot of time in brute forcing. So, no; except brute forcing (which isn't a practical solution) there isn't a way to recover that password.

Isn't gurnec's project abandoned? I'm not sure if it'd be enough for him to recover it via brute forcing, but I ought to share the updated version: https://github.com/3rdIteration/btcrecover

I'll support this. I know Charles-Tim since we were both forum newbies and wanted to grow and reach higher targets. I find Charles a contributor in this forum as he dedicates lots of hours and tries to help newcomers. We both do it anyways and haven't stopped being satisfied by the knowledge we acquire in our stay; it's nice seeing him wanting to distinguish himself by obtaining a prestigious position.

This isn't the reason, though. I've noticed he chooses to merit properly. He accomplished receiving lots of merits this year and I can say he distributed them as they should have been by a source.

No one controls it, but rich people manipulate it. As time goes on, this will probably become harder to achieve, but it'll always be in the hands of individuals and not governments'. Michael Saylor is an example of an individual who owns 115,000 BTC. This is an incredible amount. Whether the market cap moves backwards or upwards, this man will always be able to somehow affect the final result.

How do you know there aren't? I'm pretty sure that Bitcoin is in lots of millionaires' portfolio. They just choose to not tweet their wealth.

You can't know which nodes run from Tor or how many there are. You can surely approach a number, but you can't be certain and know where they're located. Also, you don't send transactions to an exit node, but to an onion server instead. Even if the governments run exit nodes, they can't notice anything.

And what do they have to do with the nodes they run? It's irrelevant.

I think the correct phrasing is that it discourages them to run a full node. You should always have the right to run a full node, but if you're making it hard and expensive for a person, which would happen in other block chains if they had the same amount of transactions as Bitcoin's, calling it decentralized is highly ironic.

And I wonder... How can one see it as a symbol of freedom since it's regulated by the governments? They may not achieve on destroying the network, but making its purpose meaningless is worse and they already do it by regulating it. The crypto-anarchists' dream doesn't seem to come true. 

With Bitcoin you're neither free or besieged. You're a free besieged. 

No offense, but I had a hard time reading your text.

What do you mean to access someone's signature? They can't provide a valid signature if they don't have the private key and any invalid signature will be rejected by the network.

Take, for instance, the example with Alice, Bob and Charlie. They want to split a UTXO into three parts (from a multi-sig wallet). To do so, Alice creates the three outputs and signs the transaction. Bob receives the signed by Alice only transaction and confirms she did what she stated. Bob agrees with the transaction and signs it too. Now Charlie receives a transaction that has two signatures, Bob's and Alice's, and does what Bob did. If Charlie agrees he can also sign the transaction and broadcast it.

They can all access everyone's signature, but they have no reason to change them, because that would make them invalid.

---

As for privacy: There's no need to do this procedure publicly, but they wouldn't be in danger of fraud due to the above. They're safe due to the ease of confirming the transaction's validity. I hope this answered all of your questions.

Couldn't you find a better name? I mean, I can't memorize this and it doesn't make much sense. What is coinow.space suppose to mean?

The design is fine, but what's that it offers that makes it special? I can see the exact page on TradingView if I'm not mistaken. If you allowed us to choose a specific date, then it'd be cool.

What's that fluff you're talking about?