How can the laptop be offline and synchronize with the network simultaneously?

What's your setup, exactly? Is it a laptop that is sometimes online and syncing, and others offline for signing transactions only?

Based on the following, I assume you have two computers; one for signing only (airgapped), and the other Internet connected, holding your watch-only wallet:

So v23.0 as a full node, and v0.21.x for signing only. I don't see why this wouldn't work. Sounds good.

If by "investors" you mean everyday laymen who wanna make a quick buck and saw a "Binance" ad in YouTube, then yes. But, if you don't, then I think you underestimate serious investors. I believe every serious investor in Bitcoin is capable of protecting a seed phrase. Not only that, but I believe they are aware of what happens to their money if the central broker goes out of business.

Speaking out of experience with my interaction with serious investors, they don't invest into stuff they don't understand. Buying bitcoin and keeping it in an centralized exchange means you don't understand it.

Sure, but you can't keep bitcoin in your name, whether you like it or not.

Με αφορμή το πιο πάνω λινκ, θέλω να ξεκαθαρίσω και κάτι άλλο. Το ότι χρησιμοποιώ Bitcoin Core δε σημαίνει πως σόνι και ντε είμαι "fanboy" του κάθε Core developer. Το λέω γιατί έχω κατηγορηθεί στο παρελθόν (και γι' αυτό). Η ομάδα του Bitcoin Core είναι μεγάλη, και οι ιδέες, συζητήσεις και προτάσεις ποικίλουν σε αντιπαραθέσεις. Ο Luke Dashjr, για να φέρω κι ένα παράδειγμα, είναι γνωστός για τις τρελές πεποιθήσεις που έχει και επιβάλλει πλέον με το Ocean pool και το Bitcoin knots.

Πίσω στο θέμα τώρα. Το "very fishing" δε βλέπω που είναι. Το ότι γίνονται συζητήσεις εξωτερικά από το Github;

I must have misinterpreted "oversight" then. I thought you said that the goal of Bitcoin was to create untraceable (from the government) transactions, to evade taxes mostly.

Sure. The original intent was to detach money from the state. In fact, given that Satoshi was a bit of an anarchist, and there were a lot of crypto-anarchists around that niche at that time, I believe he was profoundly with that philosophy in mind.

But, has it really failed if these people choose to forfeit custody? I mean, if you personally don't care about self-custody, does that alter Bitcoin's goal or my interaction with Bitcoin? Bitcoin is all about freedom of choice in the end. It allows you to mistreat it.

96 reserved for BlackHatCoiner. Thank you! 

The error says that BTC RPC explorer attempts to connect to localhost on IPv6. Is that surely supported? Try adding the followings two in configuration file:

And replace "localhost" with "127.0.0.1" in the .env configuration as rightly said by BitMaxz. (That'll switch to IPv4)

I frequently see this being brought as a con, but it seems more of a pro to me. When people just want to make financial transactions, they choose fiat over bitcoin, not because it is inherently better. It's just because they prefer spending their de-valuated fiat rather than their scarce bitcoin. Being "better money" doesn't equate to being better at completing transactions.

And I'd argue that when people want to complete a transaction in private, via the Internet, cryptocurrencies are took into serious consideration now more.

Here's a thing though. Five years ago, decentralized exchanges were undeveloped. Currently, Bisq takes the first place with over a thousand of trades per week.

What matters isn't the enforced Know Your Customer on many more CEX than before per se. What matters is the legislating framework of your country that forbids you from trading decentrally. If you're forbidden to trading decentrally, and have to pass through this KYC nonsense, then that's a problem.

It has been told to you quite a lot of times already that this is only partly true.

You can't sell a house in Greece with crypto. The transaction must be made using a bank, otherwise it is illegal.

I went without any books either, but I'd argue that taking Mastering Bitcoin more seriously would have saved me a lot of hours. Andreas has made an excellent work on compressing a whole lot of Bitcoin stuff; a few pages of my topics started by me kind of stuff.

I remember myself asking these gentlemen a ton of questions when I was a newbie. And now... Now I'm top 7, baby. 

Just joking. All of them are far more knowledgeable and experienced in the Bitcoin space than I am.

Did I say Adam Back invented anything apart from Hashcash Proof-of-Work? I know you're brain dead, but at least try to interpret before insulting.

It is pretty infeasible, actually. Satoshi did not invent Bitcoin, he implemented it (he sort of invented some internal parts of it though, don't get me wrong). The core ideas behind Bitcoin were already presented before 2009. Wei Dai's b-money demonstrated the public ledger, the use of digital signatures between pseudonymous entities, even smart contracts. Adam Back came up with Proof-of-Work. Finally, Nick Szabo's bit gold was presented as a model that would eliminate trusted third parties, and talked about precious metals and their disadvantage on transferals (which was even implemented with the help of Hal Finney's RPOW).

Bitcoin is the killing combination of these polymaths. I refuse to believe that one person came up with all of these; especially when they were publicly available for any hobbyist interested to read.

My desktop wallet software suggestions are: Electrum and Sparrow. Electrum if you simply want to have an airgapped computer which will be used to sign transactions (comes pre-installed in Tails OS). Sparrow is good at that, with the addition that it is supported by SeedSigner which I wholeheartedly recommend to acquire instead of a hardware wallet.

Both of which should connect to your full node first, of course.

The creation of secp256k1 took place in 2000, whereas Dual_EC_DRBG in 2006 and it was withdrawn right after in 2014. Yet, secp256k1 is in more public scrutiny than ever, and still no weaknesses have been found. I don't feel as if it is backdoored.

That being said, I don't see how that would convince someone Satoshi knew it beforehand. Sounds like a wild conspiracy to believe he worked for the NSA apart from simply... selecting cryptographic algorithms that weren't proved to be backdoored. There are other people who've selected such algorithms (beyond secp256k1) that are still not evidently backdoored, but we don't blame them for working with the NSA. 

Sure, you can't prove a negative, but the default position for an anonymous user is to be one. If I don't know anything beyond the pseudonym "Pmalek", my default stance is that you're one person. That's what you've shown, and what I naturally interpret. There is no strong enough evidence he was more than one person (only one supports they were both Nick Szabo and Len Sassaman?).

7k blocks left 'til halving.

$7k left 'til ATH.

To me, it doesn't matter either. Satoshi, whoever he is, implemented the ideas of Nick Szabo, Wei Dai, Adam Back etc. Even if he is none of the suspects, to me, the real creators of Bitcoin are those. Satoshi *just* practiced their theory, but the brilliant minds of Bitcoin are those of Nick and the rest.

The Russian article was written in 2010, but the wayback machine sends us to 2006. How could there be a link to a 2010 post in 2006? Also, the Russian article does not only refer to bit gold, but to Bitcoin (i.e., contains links to bitcoin.org). It was definitely published after Bitcoin. Something doesn't hold water here.

That doesn't make sense, in my opinion. Adam Back recently leaked his conversation with Satoshi, in which Satoshi presented him the whitepaper. If Adam was into Satoshi group, why would this conversation even exist? Faking a private conversation like that seems far-fetched.

Sounds more plausible that Nick used a British word or two to cover himself up. He had to switch to another writing style anyway.

---

Can somebody answer me these questions of mine? So, in this blog post Nick Szabo demonstrates bit gold, the direct precursor to Bitcoin. I think I made somewhat of a discovery, but it's probably me having insomnia, so forgive me if they're already presented before.

• Why does the blog post's date say "December 27, 2008", whereas in the URL, it is apparent that the post was published on 2005? If you use wayback machine, you can check yourself that in 2006, it said "December 29, 2005". Date doesn't change if you edit your blog post IIRC. It's as if he deliberately modified it a few days after the Bitcoin whitepaper was published in Meltzdowd mailing list. What doesn't stick to this story is that Nick wasn't aware of Bitcoin until 2011, when he published his first ever comment on Bitcoin. It just doesn't sound right that he hadn't figured it out prior 2011, given that it was practically his life work.
• In wayback machine again, 2006, why is there a link to a "Bitcoin" post from the future? How can such a thing have happened? It exists in archive.is as well.

You can keep it.

Sent you 0.1 tBTC. 

I get why people might suspect Nick Szabo, but speculating beyond that is pointless, IMO. How does ThatInternetGuy knows such details as to who wrote the code? If I had to guess a candidate, then it'd be Nick but only Nick. In this little research, the author has found out similarities between Nick's writing character and Satoshi's, therefore concluding he might have written the whitepaper and forum posts, but it is also known that Nick has had quite a good expertise in C++. Just because Len committed suicide at about the same time satoshi stopped posting, does it mean it was him? Of course not.

Can you imagine the complains to demerit sources? 

I wouldn't want to be the black green sheep if I had airdropped merits. It's confusing and doesn't provide any important insights anyways. If you want to check if a user has airdropped merits, you can just check bpip. If that's not enough, then we can perhaps introduce a "merit airdropped" field in profile page.

The entire issue is a non-issue. Nobody has ever had a problem with distinguishing airdropped merit users, and even they have had, it is a harmless statistic anyway.