The article was in no way related to Bitcoin, so I do not understand the purpose of the opening line. Also, cyber thefts did not intensify as a result of cryptocurrencies, it has been a thing years before the blockchain or any cryptocurrencies where invented. Crypto does not directly motivate crime, anything of value would be used for illegal activities, especially the popular fiat.

What do you mean "collecting"? Are you suggesting they do tasks or offer services in exchange for digital currencies?
Your topic title highlights bitcoin, but the posts content is suggesting introducing kids to a wide range of coins and tokens, which in my opinion would be a bad idea.

You can start impacting healthy financial knowledge in children from an early age. That's the concept of the book 'Rich Dad; Poor Dad'. There is a limit to what they can understand at a young age, so you need to take an extra effort to learn teaching methods suitable for different ages if you really want to impact useful knowledge.

Trust wallet is not a recommended wallet, they are not open source and have other huge question marks about their operations.
If you're looking for a secure, open source and non custodian wallet, you should check other options depending on what currency you wish to store.

If you take the literal explanation of the bounty on moving and deleting a post you are not supposed to and compare that with the auction rule, it could be said that it still stands and you "can not" move or delete a post you're not supposed to; while the post is in the auctions board, it's impossible to edit, when you move it to another board it conforms to the rules of that board, if you move it back to auctions; again, you cannot edit it. Just like how you can start a thread as self mod and remove that feature, even though it should not be possible.

This is definitely something that can be exploited, I'm just not sure it is in accordance with the bounty agreement.

On the basis of "use"; anyone can properly set up and use a hardware wallet. There are lots of helpful tutorials about how to do so, and with a bit of research anyone can get them. Products are designed to be used and have instructions to this effect. The idea that Bitcoin is some bizzare concept which is almost impossible to understand is inaccurate.

On the basis on "cost"; it boils down to how much you plan to keep in your wallet, significant amounts like $5000+ are safer in a hardware wallet than on a mobile phone/PC.
Much smaller amounts can be carried around in a mobile device, sort of like a digital wallet.

Cryptocurrency trading is not particularly illegal, the only law is that which bans Banks from mediating in crypto transactions.
About what he did, probably nothing illegal, in a country like Nigeria, the border between rule of law and arbitrary actions from security operatives is murkied and one can be arrested and charged over mere suspicions; Reason for the nation wide protests about two years ago against a particular security sect which were know to victimize citizens, especially youths. You could try googling EndSars protest, there's a thread about it on the forum too.

It would be quite a slippery slope considering how it can be applied. Merits are awarded by individual users based on their assessment, a system that overrides my opinion of a post seems a bit too much. Even banned users can still receive merits on their posts (IIRM), so it shows that their contribution to the forum is very much appreciated even though they broke the rules.

And I think those were based on merits sent erroneously or proven cases of abuse which raised too much eyebrows.

This is even a more ridiculous possibility than the idea that you sold your laptop with an entire Bitcoin stash in them and completely forgot about Bitcoin until you saw a site that sells wallet.dat files.

Posting consecutively is against forum rules.
You should merge your new post into the initial reply.

The topic on "renewable" is focused on the electricity which the mining rigs consume.
The societal perspective is that if it cinsimes much electricity them it's contributing to climate change as the high electricity demand requires more supply.

Miners can switch to more renewable sources and provided their own electricity, using wind or sunlight which would not cause damage to the environment.

One of my favourite is not from a very popular user, but one who made a thread I have very so often referred back to when looking for simple solutions to seemingly complex issues;


I find the quote particularly useful cause so many people claim to have missed the top or are too late to benefit from Bitcoin and while the post was made some years back, it applies to any year regardless.

Such cases can of course be analyzed. And that can only be done; on a case by case basis.

I can't give a general opinion on whether or not an action would fall under abuse of the trust system without considering the words used in the feedback as well as the evidence provided, if any. Such an action would throw lots of feedback ratings into a gray area and some users would not know if they are properly using the neutral tag option.

This is a topic that has been discussed several times on the forum and the general outcome is that no one can predict how the scenario would pan out.

Over 99% of Bitcoin have been mined already and we can already catch a glimpse of how the network would pan out over the next two halvings where about an extra 5% would be added to the total supply.
The response to this situation cannot be determined now.

Miners regularly shut down their rigs or equipments due to unprofitability, although not at a scale when there's a global situation, but if the current market is any indication, there would always be miners who would replace those who left.

In my experience the school system does not provide "perfect" education and graduates still have a lot of unlearning and relearning to do after exiting that system.

---

Op, do you plan to teach the technical aspect of Bitcoin (as much as the students can understand) or the area of financial literacy and independence? Or perhaps a combination of both.
You'll have limited time to impact knowledge as this would fall under extra curricular activities, so the beginner courses you talked about and some follow up lessons should be alright for now.

Sadly, there are a lot of such people in the world today and Wikipedia may be looking to pander to the general public by this action. I could interpret this action to mean; "we were not getting enough Bitcoin donations for the gamble we took to attract Bitcoin users and have decided to drop it in a way that makes us look good"
Would be nice if they actually returned the little donations received in cryptocurrencies.

If half the energy and awareness put into the perceived danger of PoW mining was directed to actual climate dangers, it would truly benefit the planet.

One big factor which would influence this is CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currency).
If more countries adopt Bitcoin or launch their own blockchain related currencies to function alongside regular cash, that would draw in lots of users and spark more global adoption. With contribution from general growth of awareness about cryptocurrencies and new trends popping up like NFTs, then 1 billion in that timeframe is very reasonable.

What could be the effect of such wave? Well, it could dilute the number of users who actually use crypto covertly and remove the "crypto" in cryptocurrencies, as more centralized platforms emerge.

Yes. If RBF is enabled and the first transaction is still unconfirmed.

Both transactions cannot be in a "mined" block. Once one gets confirmed the other is invalid and if it has already been added to a block, so would the block too.

Two transactions from the same input cannot get confirmed. Once the first one is confirmed, it is considered to be a spent transaction output and cannot be spent again. That would be a major flaw.

You don't have to apologize for asking a question. Everyone in this community is here to help and learn from one another.
Okay, maybe not "everyone" 

So the parent UTXO is already confirmed in this scenario. Basically what you are suggesting is a double spend, when one tried to cancel out an initial transaction by double spending it.

Miners would likely favour the transaction with the higher fee. If the first transaction used a really low fee (in comparison with the surrent ferrate) it could get stuck in the mempool and remain unconfirmed, up till the time the second transaction is created, then the second one would likely be confirmed first if the fee paid is significantly higher.

Edit: missed the last part, as pointed out by BlackHatCoiner, this would only work if RBF is activated when creating the first transaction.

I believe you meant "bliss" in the topic title and not bless.

Do you only express concern about the situation in the world or actually take actions (no matter how small) to try and solve them?
If it's the former, then you could as well just maintain ignorance, but if you actually contribute to try to make the world better, then you are indirectly helping out someone and creating a healthier ecosystem.
World policies and activities affects everyone irrespective of whether you are aware of them, ignoring the problems would only make them larger until they would have to be noticed.

To store up something basically means to keep in a safe location while you're not actively using it. Day traders are actively trading and as such they are using the funds sent to their wallet, this does not count as storage. Using an exchange account to keep bitcoins you're not using overtime is storing and is not advisable

Exchanges are necessary for trades. Except one has a trusted individual they can trade with, you'll need them.

Note that your offline wallet is the best option, but it puts all the responsibility of safeguarding your address on you. You are responsible for;
• Your private keys (seed phrase) back ups,
• Your choice of wallet software or hardware.