I tried registering with Tor and it took me half an hour to complete all Captcha. Then it said I couldn't post.
Could something be done to use the site using Tor?

I know blockchain but I'm really a noob for all internet techs.
My question is simple but not too simple to put in words. Can nodes communicate between each others so they know for sure who they receive message from if the sender wants to be known? (I add the "if the sender..." because theoretically nodes could hide themselves and send anonymously)
Can a node require other nodes to sign their messages. Do they actually do it?
Do they use another technique than signing to be sure who they're communicating with? like I send a code to the address of a node and this node as to send the code back with its message.

If someone malevolent attacks all the nodes at ounce by sending many messages to the nodes.  Would they need to all change their addresses and find each other again?

This is always the same question but I haven't read a satisfying complete answer. Most article or blogs put a list of countries with no real experience or research done.
Let's say I am non American, I travel most of the year, I might be a citizen of an EU country. I 'm looking for a country where I can open a secure  bank account and send money from a crypto exchange with no hassle.
Theory is good but personal experience is better

My friend's account got banned because he tried to log in via TOR
Also it was a hell to register (went through tens of stupid captcha)

what are secure and liquid stablecoins you could recommend today?

What are stablecoins working today? with enough liquidity and security

EDIT: i'm looking for a coin that  has achieve the 1:1 stability with the dollar or BTC or an other major coin

It's a simple idea. A distribution of QR codes to homeless people or people in need. When they present the code in some shops donators can see what they need through a network. Donators can also see past donations. They can then decide to pay for the homeless person with a proof from the shop that the donation was indeed used for what the person needed.

The donations could be done indirectly, through a platform. Donators would trust this platform for managing their donations.

It would be done with crypto currencies. This way you could help people in other countries right away. Particularly part of the world where money is lacking. So it would also help the local economy!

Shops could keep the crypto coins or exchange them within the same transaction.

Now a specific token could be created for that project. Holding or using that token would help the project.

i'm talking long term, more in case if one crashes the other would raise

in case of a crash.

Or what's the best way to hedge bitcoins long term?

Could someone explain me what means such transactions with many entries and one address receiving ?
https://blockexplorer.com/tx/fc8c2a537511e868c5017e2c9570d57aede4352a6e891951456642e1056428fe

is it a way to say "we warned you"? or they just couldn't help?

How difficult would it be for a hacker to put a fake ledger nano (or other HW) app on my computer so that when i plug my wallet it opens the fake app with the hacker's addresses?
A quick fix could be a website, we trust, checking the address is legit (website connects to your HW and you sign something with that address) ??

Just to try to propose something more sustainable after criticizing the dynamic of the fee system here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2446054.0

Optional degressive fees (as a function of block number or time): The person making a transaction choose few fee values, each with a different "life time". They are included in the transaction. When life time has passed its fee would be returned to the payer. So if he's in a hurry he would choose a high fee with a 1 block life time (or 10 minutes) , maybe an other fee with 2 blocks life time, and a 3rd fee with infinite life time. Maybe all options should have a total fee degressive in time, even if the payer doesn't care about time.

I think it would requilibrate the incentives. Even if it's not the solution it could be easily implemented and be helpfull.

[So it starts a vicious circle that worsen the problem we wanted to solve at first.]

In short: if we increase the number of transactions per second then big miners could (and would) naturally mine smaller blocks (for a short time) till the transaction waiting line appears again so that fees increase.

They have interest in maintaining a constant waiting line.

Maybe they already do that now.

The real problem is in the concept of the fees itself***: paying fees don't make transactions go faster, it just makes individual transactions pass infront of others. Nothing absolutely wrong here. But it gives incentive to miners to keep the waiting line and this is wrong. Also it is only a short term profitable strategy as higher fees and higher profits will bring more miners and so then less profit. So it starts a vicious circle that worsen the problem we wanted to solve at first.

***EDIT: The real problem is in the concept of the fees itself as it's done now. I'm not trying to say fees are evil

What are the possibilities? advantages/disadvantages...
anything planned?

It would be easier to upgrade nodes, keys and wallets than having all this drama whenever someone feels like forking the blockchain.

Many keys pairs can be generated with ones seed. Each pair (public-private) could be classified by a hash of the public key, or just its ending numbers. Class 0 if it finishes by 0, class 1 if it finishes by 1 etc... Each chain would only accept transactions within their classes. Fork nodes  should only accept unused classes for receivers, otherwise they would be malicious... well a sender has the control of the chain he/she's using by choosing which class he/she's sending money too. So even with a "malicious" fork the sender would be  protected.

It's not the same kind of pollution. One destroys the forest, the ground, and still pollutes rivers and air with very toxic elements. The other burns energy and uses hardware. Hard to compare. But today gold mining is still a big concern and to look for more gold we have to destroy more land as you can see in the news.
Could we someday have a way to stop this crazyness by all replacing gold by BTC. Gold would be used for what it is and the pollution and land destruction would certainly decrease.
Maybe there's a way to rebuy gold with BTC according to a schedule so that it's win win win win for everybody.
Also it would probably solves many debates about the future of BTC but that's secondary.
For now a serious article in a peer reviewed journal would for sure have a huge impact and start the process of mass adoption...
And it seems the right time to do it.

Hello everyone,
I am slowly learning the bitcoin technology and thought about an attack I never read anywhere yet.
A team of miners decides to collectively increase their chance of mining new blocks. This team can be one miner by the way.
This is how they would proceed: When one of them mine a new block it is sent to its teammates first so they can start working on the next block. It is sent a little later (n0 seconds)to the rest of the network. There's a risk of losing the new mined block (and the reward) and they will lose some most likely trying to launch this attack,  but this is a calculated risk: if it works (=the block is  put on the long term chain) then all the teammates miners will have a small advantage because they started to work on the next block before the others. If the next mined block is again mined by a team member then it is sent to the teammates  (n0+n1)seconds before it is sent to the rest of the network. The chance for the team to mined the new block can increase at each step and when lucky enough they can mine a sequence of blocks in the chain (with a huge payoff)  
For this strategy to be statistically possible there are few parameters to take into account: the hash power of the team relative to the rest of the miners and the time they decide to wait n0, n1, n2 ...etc as a fraction of the average time.
 Unless the team possesses a non negligeable part of the whole hasing power this attack is statistically impossible!
But a team could "hide" its hashing power and suddenly do this attack. For example,  they have new hashing power and they decide all together to mine at the same time. It would be noticeable by the network only when they have already succeed several times to mine blocks and so then the attack would have a chance.
An other parameter I didn't take into account is the delay of communications in the network. If the ratio of time delay over average block time increases then not only it gives a time advantage on the attacker (obviously) but most importantly it increases the proabability of forks. Forks will greatly help such an attack because it divides the miners hashing power, the attackers team compete against smaller group of miners and can impose their fork at the end (winning the jackpot).
I hope it's clear as I might use phony vocabulary for you guys.
As it been discussed before? any readings? ideas?
thanks for your time