Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism. There is no reason why Iran should be allowed to have any nuclear technology. In fact, Iran even pursuing nukes is a pretty strong argument in favor of launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack against Iran.

Typical leftist nonsense defending terrorists.

When you withdraw from a casino account, or any other online account, you are exchanging an IOU for coin.

The judiciary will correct injustices against complaining parties and will do so in a neutral manner. Anyone can complain online, and tell a slanted version of their side of the story, but if courts are not granting judgements against exchanges for seizing coin, one might reasonably conclude that exchanges are not seizing property that lawfully belongs to their customers.

I don't think the OP is asking about a 51% attack. My understanding of the OP's question is that he is asking about the probability of there being a chain of orphaned blocks that is 6 blocks deep. The OP does use the words "double spend attack", but the context of his question appears to be asking about orphaned blocks.

When a block is found, it will take x amount of time to propagate throughout the network, and if another miner finds a competing block within that time, there is the potential for some of the network to be working on top of one block at height y, and some of the network to be working on top of another block at the time height. If this were to happen, and both parts of the network find block y + 1 within the aforementioned x time, there will be a chain of two orphaned blocks.

Without knowing how long it typically takes for blocks to propagate, it is difficult to calculate the chances of a chain split that is n blocks deep. I do know that the miners, and mining pools have invested heavily in getting their found blocks to the other miners quickly, and over time, the time required for a block to propagate has been reduced.

With the above being said, just because there is a chain of orphaned blocks, it is not necessarily going to be true that there will be a different set of confirmed transactions in each of the blocks. In general, miners will fill their blocks with transactions based on transaction fee rate, so all miners are more or less expected to include the same transaction set in each of their blocks, notwithstanding transactions that were very recently broadcast immediately prior to a block being found.

If the post from May 30 is not written by nullius, then the cited post certainly was, lol.

I don't have any major issues with nullius, and I don't think he is hurting anyone if in fact nullius and "death_wish" are the same person. With that being said, most likely, they are the same. If you don't like him, feel free to add him to your ignore list.

Edit:typo

That solution would not be ideal. If there was some inflation bug that caused the total number of bitcoin today to be 20,999,999.9, under current consensus rules, any block that produced the above would be invalid. Further, the current block reward is currently 6.25BTC, however, the miners do not have to take the full amount (they almost certainly will), and could take less, so using simple algebra to calculate the appropriate number of unspent outputs would break consensus rules. Finally, and probably most importantly, the sum of all unspent outputs is not contained directly in any single block, this means that in order to calculate the sum of all unspent outputs as of block x, you would need to review all blocks leading up to block x, and this is not something that is scalable.

My understanding is that LBC does keep sole custody of customer deposits. There is a lot of automation involved, so the seller telling LBC that the coin can be released to the buyer will often have the effect of the buyer instantly receiving the coin, but LBC may delay any withdrawals from the buyer's account for various reasons.

As a general rule, it is best to not sign a transaction unless you are okay with the transaction being broadcast and confirmed.

Sure, a video game item may have some actual value because players would have some use for it.

My prior comment was referring to the "art" NFTs that are nothing more than hashes of images that can be trivially duplicated, and often, the seller has no legitimate rights to the "art".

I have posted in other threads that NFTs can also represent ownership of physical items, such as real estate, and this would be another example of when NFTs would have actual value.

I don't think the warning is about protecting the devs. I think it is more likely to be a legitimate warning to potential users to not keep all their money in cryto. A warning on a discussion forum that is not officially associated with the project is unlikely to provide any legal protections to the devs of said project.

NFTs have the potential to have actual value if they represent some property in real life. However, I think most “art” NFT have little to no underlying value.

I understand that WO is still moderated, even if it is less moderated than advertised. Reporting spambots for example should result in action being taken.

I have also reported rule violations in the WO thread for rules that are not enforced (these reports were made in error), and said reports were marked as bad.

I think if something is remaining in unhandled status, you should regard that report as a "soft bad" type pofts.

There are no countries that have an interest in invading Russia. I don't think any western country would benefit strategically by successfully invading Russia.

I could potentially see China invading Russia in an effort to secure oil/gas supplies ahead of an invasion of Taiwan.

Bitcoin core already stores all block/transaction data in a database.

There are a number of block explorers that you can run on top of bitcoin core. Here is a list of some of them.

---

Another important thing to point out is that you do not want the "balance" of any given address, you are most likely going to want to know the unspent outputs associated with each address.

Putin has surrounded himself with 'yes men'. His strategy was to complete the war in a couple of days. This is evidenced by the fact that he did not even plan for resupply lines to help the front lines.

Russia is being exposed as weak militarily. It still has a stockpile of nukes, but is vulnerable to invasion/attack.

FH was a left-wing Bernie bro, and IIRC was a supporter of communism. That is far from moderate, and he did care about politics.

IMO, it is more important for the P&S mod to be able to moderate in a way that is viewpoint neutral, and will not allow his views on topics of discussion interfear with his decision making.

If this is accurate, the warning should probably be removed.

I don't think the forum uses MySQL. It appears that SMF may use Oracle databases by default, although theymos has customized the forum software, and the new forum software uses postgressSQL, so he may be using that.

I would agree that only certain admins have access to the forum database, although the OP was pointing out specific situations in which certain mods had permissions to view certain data from the database under particular circumstances. This is different than a moderator making an arbitrary query to the database.

if Alice is trading with Bob, and is using Charlie as an escrow agent:
*If Charlie is taking sole custody of the coin, as his role as escrow agent, he will release the coin upon the agreement of both Alice and Bob
*If Charlie is using a 2-of-3 multisig address, as his role as escrow agent, Alice and Bob will sign a release transaction upon both of their agreement

*If there is a dispute, in both cases, Charlie will decide which party will receive the release coin, and that party will sign the release transaction with a multisig escrow, or Charlie will release the transaction on his own if he is not using multi-sig.

The escrow agent has less ability to steal the coin with a multi-sig setup. This is a net benefit to his customers.

The bounty section is not even intended for actual discussion. Bitcointalk is a discussion forum, and posts that are worth reading (as part of a discussion) should generally receive merit. I would go as far as to opine that it will almost always be inappropriate to send merit to a post in the bounty section.

I would argue that most posts receiving merit in the bounty section are likely either purchased merit, in order to rank up (to junior member), or some other form of nefarious activity.

A 2-of-3 multi-sig without a security deposit should reduce the risks to all parties involved. If the transaction goes smoothly, both parties sign the release transaction, and if there is a dispute, the escrow agent can mediate the dispute according to the TOS of his services and sign a transaction accordingly.

A 2-of-3 multi-sig escrow agent would not be able to arbitrarily run away with his customer's money, although he would be able to collude with one of the parties involved to steal the money in the escrow address. This setup may work when there is modest amounts of trust among all of those involved.

That depends on your definition of "better"

Using cold storage will generally be more secure than storing your private keys on a computer that is connected to the internet. However, it will also be more difficult to spend your coin because you will be having to transfer transactions between your internet-connected computer and your cold-storage computer.

---

In general, I would advise to try to minimize the number of times you are accessing your cold storage wallet. Anytime you access your cold storage, you potentially expose yourself to physical attacks. Generally speaking, you may wish to keep modest amounts of coin on an internet-connected device that you may use for "everyday" type transactions, and only access your cold storage when you are wanting to make a larger purchase.

The above will depend on how much money is involved for each type of transaction, what you can afford to lose, and the value of your time.

There was apparently a large holder of the "stablecoin" that was "backed" by luna that was in a lending platform that was paying high interest rates for coin stored there. There are reports that this large holder quickly exchanged their stablecoin for various stablecoins and for luna (which they subsequently sold).

The above holder apparently sold enough for the stablecoin to fall below its $1 peg, and eventually, confidence in the stablecoin was lost, and the price of luna fell through the floor.

---

Tether is backed by actual assets that are liquid, and USDT can be exchanged for real dollars. If the price of USDT falls far enough below $1, traders will buy USDT at market prices, and will exchange those USDT for actual dollars to make an arbitrage profit.