ok but what's with wanting to destroy privacy coins? confiscate them from people and then burn them. that's just kind of like throwing money away.
I guess they want to remove privacy coins from circulation? Which is definitely going to work because there's obviously nothing worse for a coin's value than reducing its supply (/s) The UK has been at the forefront of the anti privacy laws for years. You are guilty by default until you manage to prove otherwise the moment you try to protect your privacy in any way. From downloading Tails to mixing your coins because you don't want to disclose your funds to the parties you are paying. The government is run by idiots that don't understand the concept of basic privacy being needed for your security, so instead they criminalize the whole thing. And yes, the State owns everything, private property is an illusion, they just temporarily let you own stuff. It is safe to say now that you cannot cash out. If you try to cash out, they will give you hell, specially if your coins do not come from KYC exchanges. So if you try to cash out funds from sig campaigns for instance, that is a problem. |
|
|
|
ok but what's with wanting to destroy privacy coins? confiscate them from people and then burn them. that's just kind of like throwing money away.
I guess they want to remove privacy coins from circulation? Which is definitely going to work because there's obviously nothing worse for a coin's value than reducing its supply (/s) The UK has been at the forefront of the anti privacy laws for years. You are guilty by default until you manage to prove otherwise the moment you try to protect your privacy in any way. From downloading Tails to mixing your coins because you don't want to disclose your funds to the parties you are paying. The government is run by idiots that don't understand the concept of basic privacy being needed for your security, so instead they criminalize the whole thing. And yes, the State owns everything, private property is an illusion, they just temporarily let you own stuff. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, everyone that had an account registered should be receiving these documents. It's annoying since I did not have any funds so im not even interested on the details. I guess they don't want to gamble and just simple are sending these letters even if you never used the exchange but had an account there. These letters have been coming for years now since this happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like the market is removing Ordinals itself. There is no real demand for this to the point it would clutter the blockchain it seems, so it's just a fad. Maybe in the future there are other use cases. For now those that want to play around with tokens are using centralized pretend-decentralized Solana, this is where all the memecoins happen nowadays, since ETH failed to do that themselves since it doesn't scale. Im just hoping no more nonsense is added on BTC. Just leave the money alone.
|
|
|
|
I'm a Tails user. I strongly advise against attempting to download the blockchain onto a USB stick. Relying on such persistent storage for an extended duration is not recommended. In my two years of using Tails, I've encountered USB corruption issues numerous times, and must have reinstalled the OS by more than five times. It's also crucial to upgrade to the latest version promptly, which further complicates using it for this purpose. Btw, is there a problem by sending BTC to a centralized exchange through Tor? in terms of getting the transaction blacklisted or something? Very probable. I doubt you'll even reach the stage where it shows your deposit address. Your IP will likely have been blacklisted by then. Edit: After reading NeuroticFish's response below, I'm uncertain if you're referring solely to broadcasting through Tor while accessing the exchange from the clearnet. I understand that you're accessing the exchange through Tails and consequently via Tor as well. I would be running the OS through an USB but I would have a portable SSD to host the blockchain and keep it updated there. Or I could just install it on the SSD and use it as the OS there. I would be accessing the CEX with clearnet. So when I send to a CEX, I would like to be able to send through clearnet, so it matches the clearnet IP with the broadcast IP. If I send it through my node, then it would go directly into the CEX node, so they would know the IP, or it goes through additional hops? I've read people got transactions blocked from broadcasting through Tor into a CEX. Sometimes I want privacy so I want to run through Tor, sometimes I want a clearnet transaction. If I use Tails, is it possible to send through clearnet? or is it all forced through Tor? You can use clearnet browser if you want to, not sure how this would work with a BTC transaction. |
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know if BTC Core will work properly if installed on Tails USB with Persistent Storage enabled? I saw that the modern versions now allow you to upgrade the Tails OS on the fly while keeping all of your Persistent Storage encrypted volume intact which is great. I remember not using this OS because you needed to wipe the data to upgrade but now it works.
If you want to use BTC Core wallet for watch-only to send transactions, will this work properly? has anyone tried?
Btw, is there a problem by sending BTC to a centralized exchange through Tor? in terms of getting the transaction blacklisted or something? I just use Tor by default for common sense privacy, but you never know nowadays.
|
|
|
|
Would it be possible to fix it somehow, or has Google found a way to completely nuke captchas on Tor? I have tried on another sites, I thought it was the forum, but it's the captcha. I can't no longer register an account on Reddit since the captcha does the same, as well as in other forums. I don't want to rely on VPNs so this sucks. If anyone knows a way to bypass it let me know.
There is no way to ''fix'' this since nothing it's broken, this was intentionally made to be hard like this especially with Tor browser. Only way would be if admin replaces g00gle captcha with hCaptcha, that is a bit better version of captcha in my experience, but I am not sure if that works with cloudflare or not. Yeah I know the captcha was always hell with Google, but the thing is, lately it's just ridiculous, it does no longer give you even the chance to click on pictures or something, it's just stuck forever on this loading loop so there's no chance, and no amount of cycling throught the different Tor node circuits is going to give you an IP that isn't flagged with this nonsense, so you are blocked. Basically you cannot create a new account with Tor anymore since you don't have a ccode. As far as alternatives, 4chan uses some sort of captcha system that works with Tor, or at least it loads last time I checked, but they have banned all Tor nodes from posting anyway, but at least the captcha needs to work. |
|
|
|
|
I have a ccode saved in order to bypass the time waste that is filling a captcha, specially with Tor where you have to cycle through endless circuits in order to find one that works, but I was trying to log in in another computer where I didn't have the ccode saved. It was impossible, I couldn't log in until I went to the other computer where I had the ccode saved. When I click on the captcha it just does the loading circular animation indefinitely and does nothing else.
Would it be possible to fix it somehow, or has Google found a way to completely nuke captchas on Tor? I have tried on another sites, I thought it was the forum, but it's the captcha. I can't no longer register an account on Reddit since the captcha does the same, as well as in other forums. I don't want to rely on VPNs so this sucks. If anyone knows a way to bypass it let me know.
|
|
|
|
Should public developers be anonymous?
Can they stay anonymous? I think that's the problem, they are still signing up on a centralized websites like the one owned by Microsoft (ie. Github) and have to push commits there. This can create a lot of challenges for someone who wants to stay truly anonymous. Michael Saylor mentioned some features he is interested in developing on the MicroStrategy World conference. He talked about DID (decentralized ID) running on Bitcoin, I believe using ordinals. So if he is interested, then maybe ordinals aren't completely useless. This way you could host your PGP keys or something like that in a decentralized network instead of depending on some servers that can be seized, compromised or otherwise tampered with. They also mentioned an idea of using LN payments to stop spam email, fake accounts running crypto scams and so on, by using micropayments. |
|
|
|
|
Prices will always fluctuate as demand for something is not constant as well as supply, so these things vary with time beyond your control. You thus have to have assets that will trade higher than the rate your savings deteriorate, that is, that pay an income, like stocks, or that have stricly limited in amount and there is a demand for them (real state, bitcoin). That is all. The rest is in my view just economic theory but that is how it goes in practice. What I mean is that both scenarios are unrealistic thus not relevant for me to wonder about. You cannot guarantee permanently deflation or inflation at 2%.
|
|
|
|
Para mí, en cualquiera de los escenarios/países, es probable que el mayor problema sea, tal y como indica takuma sato, el argumentar la bondad del origen de los fondos. No creo que a nadie por aquí le parezcan ilegales, pero ante cualquier validador del país que sea, decirle que el origen son unas campañas de firmas de un foro de las cuales se tiene, a lo sumo, evidencias en forma de Google Docs + TXs de ingresos, puede que no sea sencillo de dar por bueno. Máximo si a ello le añadimos, por ejemplo, que parte de ellos pueden estar originados en negocios ya inexistentes o inclusos cerrados e intervenidos por autoridades. A todo ello, no nos olvidemos de que hay varios momentos impositivos, al contrario del mantra que se repetía hace unos años donde se aseveraba con frecuencia que sólo se paga al vender: - Al recibir fondos de una campaña supone tener que declarar los fondos de alguna manera (probablemente como ingresos del trabajo). - Cuando el valor del patrimonio global (agregando distintos conceptos donde se incluirían las criptomonedas) supera cierto umbral – ya para patrimonios de cierto peso. - Al vender y/o permutar. Es decir, respecto de la residencia fiscal vigente, habría que tener claro si se ha cumplido con lo anterior respecto de los bitcoins acumulados, o en su defecto, estar seguro de que ha prescrito y de que, y lo digo en inglés por ser más elocuente, "it won’t come back and bite you in the ass later on".Hoy por hoy, uno diría que probablemente sea El Salvador el país más receptivo a poder conformar una huida tributaria, pero a todo esto, falta saber la letra pequeña asociada tanto en el país vigente del cual uno se despide hipotéticamente en términos fiscales, como del destinatario. Por ejemplo, vimos hace poco que en El Salvador existía hasta hace poco un KYC para TXs superiores a 200$ (ahora va a cambiar), y como este caso puede haber otros aspectos que no trascienden al mero lector de noticias. Otra cosa es darse un cambio de vida del estilo, que podría ser algo contranatural según para quién. Luego le seguiría quizás el estudio de Andorra y Alemania, pero entrando a fondo con algún asesor tras estudiar el terreno de juego para ver cómo pinta. Teniendo en cuenta a su vez que la legislación tiende cada vez más a incluir cambios como la próxima implementación MiCa. Sobre lo resaltado en negrita, acabamos de ver las noticias de Roger Ver detenido en España, por que le acusan de no haber pagado impuestos de hace como 10 años. El IRS es absurdo el tema, de que te persigue por todo el mundo. Pero tengo entendio que Roger Ver ya no tiene nacionalidad de USA, si no de St Kitts, entonces no se por razon el IRS Aun insiste. Quiza al ser una cantidad ingente (50M) no ha prescrito. Sobre las permutas, lo suyo seria esperar a que prescribiese todo movimiento, y a partir de ahi ver. Esta claro que hay 2 opciones: O esperar una amnistia, que puede ir con letra pequeña o no ocurrir, o tomar accion y intentar dar el paso. Pero como bien dices hay que mirarlo bien. Es evidente que quien participa en campañas de firmas solo es una actividad legal de marketing, el problema es pasar los fondos a un banco y que hacienda no se monte peliculas al respecto. Esto imagino que depende del pais. |
|
|
|
|
Debes cambiar la residencia fiscal cumpliendo con los requisitos para ser residente fiscal, ya sea residencia activa o pasiva que suele ser muy diferente en algunos lugares. Luego presentar la baja en la hacienda de tu pais (no se de donde eres). Necesitaras poder pasar los fondos a un banco, y ahi empiezan los problemas. Un banco te aceptara fondos que vengan de Coinbase con documentos de compra y venta mucho mas facil que fondos que provengan de campañas de firmas por ejemplo, que es lo que se lleva comentando durante bastante tiempo, que hacer con esos fondos. Necesitaras poder probar al banco que los fondos no le daran problemas. Tambien necesitaras que la hacienda donde se haga la operacion este conforme y cumplir bien con el timing de todo.
|
|
|
|
|
With the news of Samurai Wallet developers being set to jail and having their lives permanently ruined, this thread seems pretty relevant. Luckily I do not work into anything that would be at risk of this, but you can see how the governments don't give a shit about your pro-privacy arguments.
Yes, you should have a right to not disclose your Bitcoin funds to whoever you are paying to, so using a mixer is the only solution for that, but governments have decided to threat anyone using them as dodgy by default. In this case they are going to jail and they will be bankrupt for life since they claim all the money that went through their software is money laundering by default. So basically they are screwed.
I wonder how long the will come up with some excuse to claim running nodes is money laundering too, while drones clap about the price going up with the ETFs. I always thought that BTC is increasingly useless unless it's KYC'd because governments are ruining any usage of it that isn't KYC'd, so if you don't have all the records, there is no incentive to do anything with it, since they don't provide any alternatives.
|
|
|
|
"Buying something" with BTC may be cool if you are dealing with small amounts. The moment BTC goes to 100k, 200k, 300k.. and your wallet is now 7 figures, and you continue to use it limited ot Bitrefill coupons and whatnot, it is a bit of a joke. You have all that money but you cannot really upgrade your life quality.
If you want to move and live on a better area, diversify in other assets, buy a better car, increase monthly expenses.. you can't do anything relevant with the money. A solution is needed and part of it is being able to interact with the fiat system in one way or another, thus the audit being part of it. There has to be a jurisdiction that isn't some dodgy non CRS country that would be ok to do banking with the funds.
I disagree. You can do anything you want, as long as you don't mess with other people's freedom and of course as long as you don't hurt someone. Why can't you buy a car with BTC? I think the reason is because the car company doesn't accept BTC as a payment. That's also true if you try to buy a car in the USA, using Norwegian Krone. If you are using cash, they will ask you to exchange it to USD first, before you can proceed with the payment. If you pay using a card, then the payment processor (Visa / Mastercard etc.) will do the exchange silently behind the scene and they will charge you for that. Finally, just a quick question. According to the quoted text above, is there any usage of Bitcoin that you like? Or is there a reason why you own it in the first place? My question isn't ironic, but it looks like you have plenty of "flaws" to accuse bitcoin for, but you have no positives to indicate. Am I wrong? You have to register your car with the government records the moment you get it, so even if you manage to buy the car, they will ask where the money came from. And they will definitely ask if you buy a property. Governments don't give a shit about our right to privacy. Look at the Samurai Wallet guys. They are screwed for life for making some open source software and users are also by default seen as suspicious. The whole thing is fucked up. I think Bitcoin is great and so on but when it comes to actually using it, it's very limited unless you want to KYC the stuff can do it. If you have a relevant amount and you can't properly KYC im not sure what's the point. You can't even pass it on your family since they will never understand how to sync a node, use download the source code, compile it, run Core, do the airgap raw transactions with 2 laptops, use Coin Control etc. So all this money will be lost with you when you are gone basically. It's crazy. Which is why I would rather try to KYC the whole thing and put it on the SP500. The problem is how to do that when your funds aren't easily KYC'd. |
|
|
|
Im not sure about your situation, but banks need a source of funds, an audit gives a sense of confidence to the bank. The bigger the amount the more you are going to need it. The thing is, the weed example was literal. It's not that im buying weed with the wallet and sent it to Silk Road or something. Let's say that you have a receiving address (like for a sig campaign to put an example) and the guy that sends you the money, bought weed, or the guy before the guy that paid this guy, and so on. These Chainalysis type softwares go back several hops.
Banks will not care about the hops those coins have passed to you before if you can produce at one point solid evidence that you got them in a legal way. The whole tainted thing is just some idiocracy created by ironically crypto companies in order to steal your funds, they will ask for that and that and then seize your coins and demand more and more proofs for god knows what evidence just with the hope of you giving up on those funds. But more important banks don't deal with BTC, they deal with fiat, and there is little to no importance for them what coins you have, they care about your worth in fiat and that's all! Those audits are for private deals, it's for companies trying to get loans on their assets, pass financial inspections, issue reports or try to get a listing, lock their funds in custodial wallets as collateral, and so on and on, your average bank will not give a rats' ass about your coins and neither will they be interested ever in dealing with your Bitcoin transactions history they will ask you for your strictly $ values, how much you earn how much you spend what's your company profit and assets! To convert your coins into fiat you have to first deposit them into an exchange, and this exchange will already ruin a Chainalysis type audit on your funds. If it triggers past a certain treshhold your funds may be frozen until you deliver source of funds. If you could get them audited, you could present this audit to them, you would have something ready in case this happens, vs going in without nothing. You may for instance have got payments for sig campaigns, and when you deposit them they show up that a number of addresses trigger the Chainalysis type tool they use. You explain that the funds are legal from a marketing campaign (sig campaign that's what it is basically) which may or not be enough. A third party that has audited your coins before going into an exchange would let you prepare with more time. As soon as that "tainted" banknote enters the banking system, you're fucked. They will freeze the money and the police will interrogate you where you got it from.
It's the same thing with satoshis (each one has a serial number based on the order in which it was mined, that's how Ordinal NFTs are created). BTC is electronic cash (which has pros and cons).
Tainted banknotes are like a hot potato. The last person who gets them and decides to deposit them in a bank is royally fucked.
This argument actually strengthens my opinion that cash and bitcoin are both fungible. If you are afraid, the solution is super simple: (1) Don't deposit the cash in a bank, just use it to buy something. (2) Don't send your BTC to a CEX, just use it to buy something. Well in fact: (a) Self-custody your bitcoin. (b) Use it as it's supposed to be used, as a cash system.
Just to make some fun, I hereby volunteer to accept any coins anybody thinks are "tainted". If anyone is desperate to get rid of them, I am here. That's a joke obviously, in case anyone is super sensitive and gets mad about it 
"Buying something" with BTC may be cool if you are dealing with small amounts. The moment BTC goes to 100k, 200k, 300k.. and your wallet is now 7 figures, and you continue to use it limited ot Bitrefill coupons and whatnot, it is a bit of a joke. You have all that money but you cannot really upgrade your life quality. If you want to move and live on a better area, diversify in other assets, buy a better car, increase monthly expenses.. you can't do anything relevant with the money. A solution is needed and part of it is being able to interact with the fiat system in one way or another, thus the audit being part of it. There has to be a jurisdiction that isn't some dodgy non CRS country that would be ok to do banking with the funds. |
|
|
|
you happen to hold some coins that were used to buy weed I haven't had a bank audit my wallets, but if you know you may "have to" go through this in the future, it may not be a bad idea to use a different wallet to buy weed  Or anything else you don't want the bank to know, I can think of a enough legal purchases that are none of their business. Im not sure about your situation, but banks need a source of funds, an audit gives a sense of confidence to the bank. The bigger the amount the more you are going to need it. The thing is, the weed example was literal. It's not that im buying weed with the wallet and sent it to Silk Road or something. Let's say that you have a receiving address (like for a sig campaign to put an example) and the guy that sends you the money, bought weed, or the guy before the guy that paid this guy, and so on. These Chainalysis type softwares go back several hops. So if you go there and dox your wallet in order to be able to do anything with it, and you have blacklisted addresses, they are now tied to your wallet. The company keeps these records, they may do nothing with it or who knows. The thing is, blacklisted addresses now exist next to your dox. That is the problem. I was told that there are different ratings of how riskiness for banks and depending on the rating it may or not be a problem. So if you have like 1MM worth of payments through many years, the payments are already on the wallet, you cannot cherry pick this or that address. You have to give them the entire transaction history and get the wallet audited. If it's good to go then you can do some actual investments beside buying groceries on Bitrefill or whatnot. That's why I was asking if someone has any experience dealing with these companies at all. |
|
|
|
|
It seems more common these days that a bank will request a sort of an audit on your funds before they ever touch their records. However, I can think of many ways how that would go wrong. Namely, you send them your transaction history in the form of a text file (not them directly, but through your accountant/lawyer) but then you happen to hold some coins that were used to buy weed or whatever else, as you cannot know who paid you and where the coins came from if you just accept BTC payments in general. So what would be the implications? In order to operate with coins that do not come through your average Coinbase purchase you are going to need to pass these audits. It just seems risky to me considering you have no control over previous transactions and you'll be adding your dox next to your addresses, not great for privacy but otherwise you cannot do anything relevant with BTC besides smaller payments. Has anyone gone through these audits to use your capital in a company, to reinvest etc? If anyone has experience dealing with these firms I would be interested to know your experience.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand how can anyone vote for Biden while holding any stack on BTC. If you are serious about this and want to not see the project sabotaged, then you want to put people in power that will lobby for your interests, simple as that. Biden, Warren, AOC and co think they will get more votes being anti Bitcoin and pro Bitcoin, so even if I don't like Trump because he is a clown, I would vote for him at this point. At least he has shown a predisposition to not be hostile against Bitcoin. If they want to go on and vote democrat then they will not have a right to complain when the mining industry in USA collapses and that would suck since investing in Bitcoin miners is a great way to get extra alpha on bullruns.
|
|
|
|
Under Linux, I use the standard ".bitcoin" directory in the user's home directory. I have not changed the location of the directory at all. I start the bitcoind with the command: That should do. If I accidentally start both at the same time, can this lead to data corruption?
The one started last wont be able to use the data directory and will not proceed to start. I will definitely need to study this and do testing with testnet wallet. I guess to do the whole thing properly, I will need to create a wallet from pre-HD era (what was the latest version before HD was introduced? 0.12 perhaps) and get some testnet coins there, so I can replicate the entire process safely without screwing up with actual keys.
You can create a copy of your current wallet.dat, load it as another wallet then do the instructions with it. Using migratewallet also automatically creates a backup of the original wallet.dat. But yeah, it wouldn't hurt to test it in TestNet, you can even go for " RegTest" so you wont have to sync if you do not have a TestNet setup. You're right, you can use v0.12.1 to create non-HD wallet. Hi, im downloading debian and im going to be installing the OS first, then compile Bitcoin Core from the source. Just to be clear, there is no way to create a 0.12 era (non HD) wallet on the latest version? because then I will have to start building 0.12. Once I build 0.12 and its installed and I get the wallet, do I compile the latest version and install on top of this existing folder isn't it? so I would need to be sure to get the wallet to test properly. Im gonna get some coins from testnet and test the migration with testnet wallet, im assuming it just works the same when you do it with the real wallet. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
