You should post more details about this.
What rank do you require for you signatures, different ranks can provide different features in a signature.
What is the minimum post requirement, which boards count and which don't, how long do post need to be, etc.

The risk is that in future quantum computers might be able to steal your bitcoins, since your public key is being published every time you spend bitcoins from your address. Quite a low risk, but still.

Once you spent bitcoins from an address, optimally you should never use it again.

Bad advice. Never create an online wallet. They are pointless. Not even wallets if you really think about it.

Bitcoin Core gives you notifications when you receive bitcoins.
I assume Electrum does as well. I would be surprised to see any good wallet not giving you a notification about this.

I doubt you actually need to program anything. There are many programs that do this, specifically wallets.
You can download any wallet and they all keep track of balances of your addresses.

What is the exact thing you are trying to achieve? Why not just use a wallet?

What have you done exactly?

Have you just disclosed some information or have you done something else illegal?

It all depends when it comes to people helping you out.

By that age Genghis Khan already had his wife kidnapped.

I mean records were pretty bad then, so it is uncertain when he was exactly born, but by the time he was around 23, he already "united the Mongol tribes, became leader, and devised code of law Yassa".

There were many insane things that were happening for most of history, these last couple of centuries really changed the World quite a lot.

PS: I don't know how young this man was, but at one point in his childhood, he shot and killed his brother because he didn't share food he got by hunting or something. I don't know, but the man is nuts.

But in future, keep in mind that you will need to be online if you want to receive these bitcoins over a Lightning payment channel.

I have no idea, but maybe Segwit softfork was never activated on your network, due to lower number of blocks.
This is maybe causing your transactions to be valid, since segwit is a softfork and your Segwit supporting nodes will relay it normally and keep it in a mempool.
However, when it comes to putting them in a block, maybe the node waits until segwit is activated, before that these just might be considered non-standard transactions on the non-segwit chain.

It is just a theory though.

Nothing new nor surprising. This is an issue with the usage of Internet in last decade. It has became very centralized.
Facebook is very bad in this sense, but Google is by far the worst.
Facebook knows a lot about your personal info, but Google knows every little thing about you.
They develop the most used operating system with their closed source apps. They track you across basically all websites these days with their scripts and ads.
They know what you search for, what you are watching on YouTube, where you move with a GPS, everything.

Facebook is really bad, but Google is so freaking big that no one even dares to look at it in this way.
They had a 110 billion dollars of revenue in 2017, which is almost 3 times Facebook has.
And this is just revenue, not the actual practical influence and power they hold.
They are so freaking big, it is scary.
I swear it there is anything to really watch out for, it is these guys.
They will own your freaking lives by the end of this century.

I don't think it is fair to call it paranoia, as it is very reasonable to be suspicious of something like LN.
I also have a bit of a problem in the way Core handled this. Users should have a choice to either use LN or not, if we don't do onchain scaling, they will not have a choice. I have a problem with this.

LN however is far more decentralized than banks, as TheQuin says.
I think it is unreasonable to assume that without hubs you will need 100s of relay nodes to route your transaction. If people simply open channels with their friends, I think around 3 hops on average would be enough, according to a study done by Facebook https://research.fb.com/three-and-a-half-degrees-of-separation/

This would mean that everyone would need to open hundreds of channels with their friends, which is a problem.
We would need to make running a LN node very easy and cheap, like a simple mobile app and make sure people are usually online to route payments.
Technology can work, the question is in adoption, kinda like Bitcoin in general.

It is still reasonable to worry however. This does introduce some scary new things that we simply can't know how will work out in a long run.
LN does offer more good features than just scaling though, privacy of transactions, revenue for nodes which might increase decentralization, etc.
It is definitely something that needs to be discussed and chasing people away with different opinion is a really unreasonable and immoral idea.

I agree we are not ready. I don't know about it actually being a bad idea for people to start using cryptos more.
I understand you worry and I definitely agree that would happen and it would be a problem, but I also kinda feel it is natural and perhaps good in the long run.
This would probably get a lot of developers to work harder on this and I am sure that people would give it a second chance after the problems are fixed.
I am not saying we should focus on increasing the adoption, just that we shouldn't try to stop it.
It should probably be left natural, as is. We try to increase it's security, usability and usefulness and the adoption grows as a result.
I understand there are costs, but I think benefits of increasing adoption outweigh them.

I understood that already, but a chance for anything in this World can never be actually zero.
It makes no sense to me to give up on someone's life in order to save him from possible pain, if the patient never agreed to it.
I know I would rather be left in pain than someone to decide on my life. Especially if my family (or anyone else for that matter) would disagree with this decision.
I guess people who decided on this are more afraid of pain than dieing, maybe that is what I was missing in my understanding of the situation.

Still really buggy code though. Compared to Bitcoin at least.

I just searched for this on the Internet and read about it a bit.
Quite infuriating, I agree. I would be livid.

I am quite amazed that a court can decide such a thing. In my opinion, there needs to be a requirement from parents and family to agree to end life support and no one should be stopped from seeking any kind of treatment if they wish. I don't see a reasoning behind giving someone a right to forbid you to move your child to another country to seek treatment, that just seems insane to me, I must be missing something here.

This is very immoral in my opinion. If a parent wishes to try to help his child, you need to allow him to do so at any time, unless a child specifically says otherwise. Furthermore, letting a child die should be an absolute last resort if everyone agrees to it, literally everyone. If anyone has an objection and want to try an help a child and a child does not ask otherwise, he should be allowed to do so.

You simply can not decide on a life of someone else's child without their consent. This just seems absolutely insane to me.

Ethereum was always really buggy.
It was the only altcoin that I looked into seriously, but after having bugs when I installed a full node client, I saw that the code is not as stable and secure as Bitcoin Core. I never looked back on it since. There were a lot of security vulnerabilities discovered since then, so I never considered looking into it again.

I guess if that technology was really secure and well-tested it would have been added to Bitcoin.
I really don't have high hopes for that coin. I am sure it will be quite successful compared to others, since altcoin market is generally weak, but it will never rival Bitcoin in security and technology.

Yes, OP stands for original poster, that is you.

Well, I don't know, you said there is fear of being called racist. That with all the stereotypes sometimes attributed to black people, made it seem to me like you are talking about races. You reply now still doesn't claim it is not about race, just claims it is not about a color of the skin.
So for clarity reasons, this is the point correct?
You believe that these people belonging to a different race also belong to a different species, that they are not human, correct?

It just seems to me like there is much ambiguity in this post.

Regardless of the fact that I don't consider online wallets as actual wallets, but banks instead, I still understand your issue.
However, anonymity is a core requirement of any democracy and without it we lose something way more important than money.
Keep in mind that you can not lose your entire life savings by theft, if you are reasonable of course, as hopefully most of your worth will be held in real estate.
Losing a right of privacy when making your everyday transactions is something very dangerous to the safety of a democratic society.

Cash was and always will be more anonymous than cryptocurrency, so by deanonymizing cryptocurrencies you will never do much for the safety of society, but you will hurt the usefulness and adoption of a very great and promising democratic technology.

I would say that we definitely want everyone to use crypto.
Currencies are more useful when more people are using them.
Bigger the diversity of people using a currency, more self-sufficient that currency is as well.


Bitcoin is old for a cryptocurrency, but it is definitely not outdated.
The protocol, as well as client software is constantly being updated. Just recently we had a Segwit fork and not LN is being developed.
I don't think it makes sense to look at Bitcoin as single technology, as it is constantly being changed to something else when a new technology is proven good and useful.

Just to make it clear, OP is a racist and believes that black people are a different species, correct?

This is what I understand from your post, but you don't really explicitly say it anywhere.

A fairly small chance, yes. There is always a chance, so I assume your question is how likely it is.
I don't think it is very big or that ever will be, but risk does sum up eventually and sooner or later it might happen.

There really isn't anything that anyone can gain with a nuclear war.

PS: When you talk about WW3, it makes no sense to refer to the start of the war. It will take few minutes for missiles to be exchanged automatically and you will likely not survive it for very long, no matter where you are.