Die USB-Sticks werden vollverschlüsselt auf dem normalen Rechner, die Micro SD Karten vollverschlüssel ich auf einem anderen Rechner der niemals (mehr) Online sein wird.
Passwortlänge mindestens 20 Zeichen mit Sonderzeichen (ja muss man auswendig lernen)
Deinen ersten Schritt versteh ich nicht ganz... meinst du die Wallets liegen dann portable am Stick und werden jedesmal vom Online Rechner decrypted wenn du eine Transaktionen machen möchtest? Keine Gute Idee leider, ist dann nicht viel sicherer als ein reguläres Hot Wallet Setup. Wenn dann darfst du die Wallets nur am Offline Rechner generieren, mit Watch-Only Wallet für den Online Rechner. Die einzigen Daten die zwischen Offline und Online Rechner per Datenträger wandern sollten dann nur die vom Offline Rechner signierten Transaktionen sein. Anderfalls exponierst du die private keys / seeds. |
|
|
|
Was du nutzen möchtest (Electrum oder Armory) hängt ganz von dir ab. Beides ist absolut akzeptabel.
Wichtiger Unterschied: Die Armory Installation am Online Rechner von dem aus du die offline signierten Transaktionen verschickst benötigt Bitcoin Core. Im Gegensatz zu Electrum muss somit vorher die gesamte Blockchain runtergeladen werden. Für die meisten User ist somit Electrum bequemer, dafür hättest du bei Armory einen eigenen Node. |
|
|
|
[...] I want to know about withdraw system of this forum? [...]
There's no withdraw system. Any money that is earned by participating in signature campaigns or bounties is directly sent to your wallet in whatever cryptocurrency the respective project is paying in. |
|
|
|
Since Native Segwit addresses (Bech32) use lower fee as compared to Segwit addresses, then would it make sense to ask the online merchants to provide a Native Segwit address for accepting payment instead of a Segwit address?
For you as the customer it doesn't really matter. The fee only applies to the sender, so if you send from a native SegWit address you save on fees no matter whether you send to another Bech32 address, a P2SH SegWit address or a legacy address. |
|
|
|
Here's a compatibility list for reference: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bech32_adoptionPretty much every wallet can send to Bech32 (= native segwit) addresses these days and almost all exchanges allow you to withdraw to a native segwit address. If for some reasons you have to deal with an exchange that doesn't support native segwit yet you might be better off with a non-native segwit address (P2SH, the addresses starting with 3) for better compatibility. If that doesn't worry you, go for native segwit. |
|
|
|
how about encrypting your traffic as an alternative? or are you paranoid about VPN operators too?  This forum, in general, is a gathering of paranoid people including myself. Sure traffic from all my devices including mobiles is encrypted but as they say "better safe than sorry". The fewer devices that can potentially be identified the better. Or you think opposite?
Friendly reminder that e.g. Apple is bypassing VPNs to verify the authenticity of the applications you are running on your -- or rather, their -- machines. It's a security feature tho so nothing to worry about ;p |
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't scale the way LN does though. Quite the opposite really.
LN is improving scalability by moving transactional data off a global state (ie. the blockchain) onto a state that needs to be only locally persisted (or to some extend by the watchtower of your choice). By using sidechain nodes as watchtowers you'd be moving the transactional data that we just neatly tucked away in private back onto a publicly broadcasted blockchain, just with additional overhead. So we'd be back at square one (ie. the blockchain scalability problem), just with added complexity and more data than we initially had on top.
Now, one could use LN to improve the scalability of a sidechain -- but that's a different story altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
People should be more careful with considering WBTC the same as BTC. Sure, it's more transparent and easier auditable token than USDT for example, but it's still a centrally issued token. An IOU.
(and ironically some people considered BTC in lightning channels IOUs, which unlike WBTC, they are not)
Also does anyone else find it funny that WETH exists? I mean I get its necessity but still...
|
|
|
|
Avoiding centralized exchanges does help if the regulation only affects exchanges, rather than private citizens, which seems to be the case:
"centralized exchanges " are likely to be included but that regulation, if it comes to action, will focus on self-hosted (non-custodial) wallets and that was the point of OP. As to CEX I completely agree, anyone should avoid, if possible to use them or use those that don't require KYC. I'm trading and withdrawing on CEX with no KYC To me it seems like they are going to regulate non-custodial wallets via exchanges only though, not by means of requiring everyone who downloads a Bitcoin wallet to register with government officials. At least that's what the rest of the Twitter thread seems to imply, but granted, it's not fully clear at this point. It would be bad news either way though. |
|
|
|
Would you disclose your wallets if such legislation came into force? Which countermeasures can be taken from Bitcoiners part? Any thought on that.
There is arguably only one possible countermeasure that can be undertaken by true bitcoiners: stop using centralized exchanges for buying/selling bitcoin and start engaging in the bitcoin circular economy. The former will definitely help you in achieving the latter because in order to acquire/spend your bitcoin, you would require to interact with other "non-compliant" bitcoiners. Some still fail to grasp, that being a bitcoiner means being a rebel. Probably you missed the point of OP. According to Mr.Mnuchin's plot every one who posses any kind of non-custodial wallets like desktop, mobile, cold, paper, HW wallets will be obligated to report about this to officials and identify himself. "stop using centralized exchanges " will not help in this case. Avoiding centralized exchanges does help if the regulation only affects exchanges, rather than private citizens, which seems to be the case: This proposed regulation would, we think, require financial institutions like Coinbase to verify the recipient/owner of the self-hosted wallet, collecting identifying information on that party, before a withdrawal could be sent to that self-hosted wallet. So it seems like they want to tighten down KYC/AML requirements so that exchanges are legally obliged to withhold not only fiat, but also crypto funds. Some exchanges already have been preemptively doing this, but governmental regulation of these requirements looks like very bad news. The water is slowly boiling and everyone going through centralized exchanges is sitting in the pot. |
|
|
|
How did you measure that because I would have guessed namecoin or LTC. I'm pretty sure name coin and LTC are "bigger" than ShitCoin but please tell me how I am wrong. also, this one seems to be the first time someone used the all-known term "shitcoin", I guess.. Since SolidCoin (the coin talked about in that thread) has been dead since 2012 (based on github activity and google search results) and apparently at one point allegedly switched to a centralized authority we're not only looking at what seems to be the first usage of the term "shitcoin" but also at the first shitcoin itself! |
|
|
|
Einen Aspekt, der vielleicht am stärksten unterbewertet wird, ist die "Philosophie" eines Coins. Denn mit jedem Kauf eines Coins unterstützt man in gewisser Weise eine "Philosophie", die den jeweiligen Coin ausmacht.
Das kommt bei aller Profitgier leider oft zu kurz mit gegebenenfalls weitreichenden Folgen für das Ökosystem.
Ist meines Erachtens ein wesentlicher Aspekt der fast immer übersehen wird -- Das wir es mit einem freien Markt von nicht-staatlichen Währungen zu tun haben und dementsprechend mit unserer Geldbörse eine Stimme abgeben können ob wir z.B. kleine oder große Blöcke haben wollen, Blockchains oder DAGs, Dezentralisierung oder Zentralisierung, etc. Das ist eine nicht zu unterschätzende, neue Art von Mitspracherecht. Auf sehr langfristige Sicht 10 Jahre + würde ich es als sinnvoll erachten, Kleinstbeträge in verschiedene Altcoins aus seiner Rendite des Bitcoins zu setzen
Die erste Challenge ist ja schon mal Alts zu finden denen eine Lebensdauer von 10 Jahre+ überhaupt zuzutrauen ist... Nein, ich besitze keine Shitcoins (Okay fast nicht, ein paar Schweizer Franken habe ich noch...).
Ich mag deinen Style  |
|
|
|
Aktien (wenn man sich damit auskennt)
*lacht in Indexfond* Irgendwie witzig wie heutzutage niemand mehr Anleihen empfiehlt. Vor 10-15 Jahren waren die noch das um und auf für jedes ausgewogene Portfolio weil kRiSenSicHeR. löl Aber auf alle Fälle ein super wichtiger Punkt. Fiat Investments sind zwar relativ langweilig aber trotzdem wichtig wenn man möglichst breit aufgestellt sein möchte. |
|
|
|
Nice find OP! I didn't fully realize how long that phrase has been blessing / haunting crypto by now, but upon closer inspection even Reddit's ToTheMoonGuy has already been around since 2013. We've come a long way! I don't think they realized what they created both positive, and negative. On the one hand, its a nice little phrase that it seems that most people are aware of which creates exposure to Bitcoin, and its self explanatory what it means from an outsider. However, I'd estimate over 20k reports on users just saying "to the moon", predominantly within the altcoin section, but also within Bitcoin discussions too. So, although its probably primarily seen as a good thing, it has caused a few headaches on the other hand.
Kinda like every overused catchphrase or meme really. I personally am more tired of every cycle of "the next Bitcoin" and newfound fashionable technobabble. |
|
|
|
[...]
For argument sake, yes they have filed court arguments claiming to be the owners of the wallets, ... But what if someone else had the keys to these accounts?
Basically having the keys establishes ownership to the wallet(s) but also since these are dormant basically abandoned wouldn't this be all that is needed?
[...]
Wright has already been outed by signed messages of a couple of the addresses he claims ownership on, so yes, someone else has (some of) the keys: "Craig Steven Wright is a liar and a fraud. He doesn't have the keys used to sign this message. The Lightning Network is a significant achievement. However, we need to continue work on improving on-chain capacity. Unfortunately, the solution is not to just change a constant in the code or to allow powerful participants to force out others. We are all Satoshi." Probably not satoshi, but defnitely not Wright's coins. |
|
|
|
|
That's an interesting extension of Chainalysis' usual business but it absolutely makes sense.
For the most part governments lack the expertise to properly handle cryptocurrencies (or almost anything digital really). Chainalysis already works closely with government agencies. A perfect match.
While I'm not a fan of Chainalysis' due to deeming their work privacy invasion, they are probably more adequately equipped to store seized assets securely.
|
|
|
|
|
I honestly wasn't even aware of the option. Also I mostly use the quote button to reply and make heavy use of the preview button anyway which would make using quick reply kinda moot.
|
|
|
|
And stocks are NOT a replacement for Bitcoin! Obviously I'm biased but in my opinion cryptocurrencies -- in small, deliberate holdings -- can serve as both a hedge and a potential moonshot in any portfolio in a way that no other asset can. Small caps or specialized funds? Potential moonshots (albeit on a smaller scale), not really a hedge though. Gold and precious metals? Decent hedge but not much moonshot potential. Real estate and venture capitalism is out of reach for most people and funds that give you access to either will smother most potential gains with their fees or keep the gains while leaving you with the losses. It's possible to invest in cryptos responsibly, just as it's possible to invest in stocks incredibly irresponsibly. All in all it just comes down to proper risk management and investing sanely. |
|
|
|
As mentioned by the others, such a system would simply be too easily gamed. Which is also one of the reasons why PoW is used in the first place. Also most of btc mining is pooled wherein the workers work in silos and contribute nothing in maintaining the blockchain. There is just the central node which is both mining as well as validating transactions. The workers aren't validating most blocks. This is an asymmetric situation wherein full node runners get nothing.
Of course, and mining pools are just giving away parts of the block reward as charity  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
